Minecraft Wiki

Moving pages[]

I believe that we would need to move the PC version pages, since they do not currently specify a version. For example. 1.12 would be moved to "Java Edition 1.12", and Minecraft would need to be moved to "Java Edition". The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 13:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Before doing this we should have a working updated version of {{version link}} ready to go.
And a to-do list to work from.
And for the major versions, that idea works, but I suggest it's unnecessary for the snapshot pages, just because I don't anticipate snapshot names being duplicated or causing confusion, what do people think? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
We would need an admin to edit the page, since it is used on the main page. We may also want a bot to move the pages. Majr, can you do the task. The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 04:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We may need to ask permission from the Admin before starting this project. Skylord wars (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Majr is already part of this project. --Pepijn (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The "standard"[]

So I saw this:

"Right now we have it so Java Minecraft is the standard, normal Minecraft, and everything that's on the MCPE game we're just calling Pocket, and marking those as exceptions. To match what Mojang/Microsoft are doing, we should change the language, I think, so that the MCPE game is just the normal Minecraft, and treat Java Edition differences as the exceptions. Of course I'm not suggesting a whitewashing; Java's historic precedence would be preserved in things like History sections, or articles that talk about the history of the game like Minecraft itself." – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with not treating pocket or console editions like "exceptions" anymore, but I want to take it a step further and don't treat any edition as an exception or the "standard". Just always specifying what version you're talking about makes things so much easier IMO, for both the editors and the readers. It means that we should probably establish a standard order of editions though, which is a whole other topic. --Pepijn (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As a user of Windows 10 Edition exclusively, I have often felt twice mildly snubbed when reading the wiki, first that Java Edition was the standard against which everything is compared, and second that the shortening to "Pocket Edition", while entirely reasonable for brevity, relegates W10 Edition to little brother status. I expect many Classic players will similarly take the rebranding of Classic to, in effect, the other Minecraft as a touch demeaning; we needn't rub their noses in it. But on the other hand, establishing a standard order of editions serves a useful purpose: Users can more quickly find the information they're looking for if the layout is conventional. The question is, is there a way to do this without implying a hierarchy of importance? I would suggest listing editions in audience size order in prose, and in alphabetical order in history sections, tables, infoboxes, and other non-prose areas. Assuming we adopt JE to replace PC, it would be listed before MC, which would help keep things balanced. It would also eliminate a lot of rearranging, especially of the bits that are hardest to edit (as in did I cut the "|-" before the table entry, or the one after it?). – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Well said, both of you.
I would even say that part of avoiding the "snub" might be, being thoughtful about how we rename the version pages (see discussion above). Does literally every PC version page need to have "Java Edition" on it, or just those particular ones where there could be a confusion? Does that create a hodgepodge, or is there a rhyme or reason to it? Something to explore I think ..
For the order of things, I like what you say, but, how about in history, what if we just did it in chronological order of which edition got which feature? So in Stone, it would be Java, Bedrock, Console, but in Observer, it would be Bedrock, Java, (eventually Console last), and in Fireworks it would be Java, Console, (eventually Bedrock last)?
Note on table rearranging: if you use Visual Editor, it's so much easier to manipulate tables -- though I would advise, first, always switch to edit source mode (for instance I did this here: Special:Diff/1109656) because Visual Edit will screw up lots of things if you're not careful. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I have suggested the equality idea independently on the community portal yesterday, without being aware of this topic.
Sealbudsman, who said that we need to list editions exactly one after another? History section uses a table, why not compose it into three columns? Then we can place all versions with changes to the item chronologically; in beetroot’s case, for example, some parts of the history table related to PC/Java or console editions would be empty in places refering to the time when beetroot was only exclusive to Pocket (Portable) Edition. If you didn’t understand that messy speech above, here is what I mean:
Portable edition Java edition Console edition
0.8.0: Added beetroot.    
0.1x.0: add something here 1.9: Added beetroot. add something here
But revising the {{History}} template should be discussed on that template’s talk page, of course. — NickTheRed37 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a good idea. The problem with listing everything chronologically is that currently there are no dates in the history sections, so the first step in replacing them would be to tag each entry with a date followed by marging them–manually–into chronological order. It would be a huge amount of work to do this to all the histories. Furthermore, the resulting table would have a lot of blank cells making it ugly in my opinion: There would be years of history for Java Edition before you started getting entries in other columns, and from there on it would only have one filled cell per row (a so-called 'sparse array'). Finally, I don't think many people would find it very useful. The only information it makes clearer is how features evolved in one edition with respect to another, which is more of a curiosity than the kind of information most readers would be searching for. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The history is already listed chronologically. You don't need specific dates to make something chronologically ordered, nor do we have to match the different columns by their dates (which would cause a lot of empty space on the top of the console and bedrock codebase editions). --Pepijn (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I beg to differ. What we currently have is three separate chronologies, listed serially in one table. We were discussing how to sequence those three chronologies. NickTheRed37 recommended a single merged chronology with all editions on a single timeline. His sample even shows the resulting empty space above the console and bedrock entries you object to. You certainly do need specific dates to merge a set of chronologies, although I guess it would make sense to start by making a merged timeline of the releases and builds and then using that to order the merged history. Even so, it would be a lot of work that adds no additional information and results in a table littered with blank cells. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 11:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about what Nick meant, I was talking about how I think we should solve this: 3 separate chronologies in parallel to avoid putting one edition above another. I think we really have to stop working with a "standard" and "exceptions" when it comes to the different editions. We mostly have the Java edition as the main edition on this wiki and it's causing a lot of trouble now. If we make something else the main version, it can happen again. --Pepijn (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, your indentation made it look like you were replying to my comment. We're in complete agreement about not having a "standard" version. I do prefer to maintain the current sequence of the histories, though. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I can see that, I should have made it more clear. The main "fear" I have with listing the editions in serie is that for some pages the Java section of the history is going to become really long over time, pushing any editions beneath it very far down (which is kind of annoying for players who want to look up something in the history for those editions). Maybe we should add anchors to the history template? That way we can have links to the specific editions just in case the history table becomes really long. --Pepijn (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was also thinking about the anchors. Another possibility would be collapsible sections, which would make finding the history for a particular codebase easier and would reduce the wiki server load for some pages. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 12:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement that we don't want to suggest a supremacy of Minecraft over Minecraft: Java Edition. Unfortunately, I think the official names are going to make that troublesome in some cases. I'm specifically thinking about uses of the {{only}} template to generate ‌[Pocket Edition only] or ‌[Pocket and Legacy Console editions only]. Do we want those to read [Minecraft only]? I'm not sure it's clear that the embedded use of italicized Minecraft will be clear enough, but what would be better? Would [Non-Java Minecraft] work? How should the title text (hover hint) read? Keep in mind that this question's scope isn't limited to {{only}}; it applies to mentions of Pocket Edition etc. in straight prose as well. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 05:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to the fact that the Java Edition will occupy the top position, even if they changed the main edition. I personally think the Java Edition history on the first place is better, but not that consistent. Sure, if we want all the editions to get their own pages, but the order must be changed independently.
The "Minecraft" is definitely not clear enough to be italicized, but I also disagree if the Unified Minecraft considered as an edition. By the fact that the new Unified Minecraft will not have a suffix, we can't deny that they are going to change the main edition. We can just have Console and Java for {{only}}, and the statement about "Minecraft" will be stayed without any tags or notes. – ItsPlantseed|⟩ 08:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say in the first part, what top position? What first place? What order?
I can agree with Minecraft not being a good name for an edition on the wiki. The thing I can suggest is "Bedrock" (which has been suggested above already, which you apparently haven't read?), since that seems to be the name they gave the engine. --Pepijn (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But will "Bedrock" be meaningful to our readers? It's a technical term that has only recently been used among the developers and those like us closely watching them. I'm not confident it will ever enter common use given that Microsoft and Mojang call it Minecraft, and that "bedrock" already has a firmly established denotation in the Minecraft context. Most of the wiki readers are still in grade school, after all. They take their usage from YouTube and Xbox Online, and so far those platforms are rarely using "Bedrock" to refer to the cross-platform version. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 11:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I prefer it over treating any edition as a "main" edition, and the other editions as exceptions. I understand that readers might not know what the term means initially, but the news outlets covering this topic also used this term (the ones I read anyway). If people don't understand it, they can click the link that comes with [Bedrock edition only] (or something like that). --Pepijn (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me if my wording was/(is) looked weird to you, at the first line I'm trying to say the history part. Secondly, I was telling about the "Minecraft" (bedrock-based editions), I just stated above that I kinda disagree if the bedrock engine edition is considered as an "edition", so we can only have Console and Java Editions for the {{only}} template, and any kind of statement about "Minecraft" will be stayed without any tags or notes. – ItsPlantseed|⟩ 13:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That would suggest that "Minecraft"/"Bedrock" is the standard and main Minecraft game, which I and most others here want to avoid. It creates confusion when people who are not familiar with this new way of handling information, read something that exists only in the Bedrock "edition" and they're going to assume that it exists in other editions as well because it's not stated specifically. Specifying exactly what is in what edition makes things so much easier for both the editors and the readers. --Pepijn (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey folks, just wanted to weigh in here given that I've been thinking about this issue a lot. Bedrock is a name that we're going to be using frequently and the console community has already latched on to this name to differentiate between console editions that will get 1.2 and the ones that won't. Based on this, and from what I've already picked up in the various communities, my suggestion (which you can take or leave, of course!) is for Computer Edition to be renamed to Java Edition, Pocket Edition to be renamed to Minecraft (Bedrock), Console Edition to be renamed to Legacy Console Edition, and a separate section for Education Edition (which while technically powered by the Bedrock engine has different features, releases, etc. and we are considering it a separate edition). Under Education Edition we can also build out pages for the modules that come with it such as Code Connector & Classroom Mode. By grouping them like this, it also makes it scalable if, for instance, (and this is purely an example- not saying this is happening) we come out with an edition based on Bedrock but only runs on robots. If it has cross-play it could go under Minecraft (Bedrock) but if you couldn't cross-play, it would need to be Minecraft: Robot Edition and under its own section. --HelenAngel (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I was already hoping you would hop in here sometime to share your views. Sounds all good to me but I have a question about the Education Edition (I have zero experience with it). How different is Education Edition? Is it completely the same as Bedrock for shared features (so not taking the totally exclusive Education Edition features into account)? If it is, we might not need a different section for it on pages (we could get away with just having a page for it and a {{education}} template on the pages about the completely exclusive features, basically like we have it now). --Pepijn (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thought about it a bit more and it has some problems with our current visions on the reformatting. The current idea is to have sections for the different editions on pages so it's clearly stated which piece of information belongs to which editions (and possibly have a way of only showing sections of interest to the viewer using CSS). Using the "Minecraft (Bedrock)" section only for the cross-play editions means that we would have a lot more sections for all the editions, even though for shared features they would have the same information (I think). So maybe we should use "Minecraft (Bedrock)" as a name for the page but name the section that we would have on each page something that includes all bedrock engine editions? This is all under the assumption that shared features between all bedrock engine editions are completely the same. --Pepijn (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If we use the term "Minecraft (Bedrock)" to refer only to the cross play editions, what would be a good term for all Bedrock Engine editions, including also Education Edition, Fire OS and Fire TV and whatever else doesn't get cross play? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 01:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
HelenAngel It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether Fire OS and Fire TV will gain cross play (I assume they probably will do). If so, it shouldn't be an issue as we can use that name for all Bedrock Engine Editions (Helen Angel stated below that they treat the Education Edition as a separate version). I would be happy with Minecraft (Bedrock) as the edition identifier, replacing the pocket edition name in pages, history table etc. E.g. Pocket Edition 1.2 would be moved to [[Minecraft (Bedrock) 1.2]]. GoandgooTalk
06:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a fan of a parenthesised prefix. For the edition page, then it's not so bad (although it does make it look more like a disambiguation of Minecraft), but as a prefix for the version pages it doesn't look good. I'd much prefer just "Bedrock Edition", which also lends itself to the natural abbreviation: BE, to go with JE, and CE (or LCE now, I guess). I would be okay with completely separating edu from bedrock, if it has a completely different release timeline, and thus wouldn't make sense to group with the bedrock version pages. We don't necessarily have to duplicate the bedrock version pages either, if the releases are equivalent to a previous bedrock release, we can just point to the changes there, and note any differences. As for Legacy Console Edition, are there going to be other Console Edition versions which need to be distingished from the "legacy" ones? If not, I don't see much of an advantage to the new name, as long as the console edition page makes it clear that it is considered legacy. That being said, with its combined version page, it's certainly a lot easier to rename it. MajrTalk
10:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I do believe Bedrock Edition is probably the best way to go to simplify things. We have to remember that the name "Console Edition" was never an official name that 4J studios or Microsoft used and was just the name that was chosen for the wiki. Therefore we could use Bedrock Edition in the same vein. The only problem is that unlike the name "Console Edition" which is fairly self-referential, Bedrock Edition may not be as familiar to the layman.

I do however prefer Legacy Console Edition for the existing 4J Studios version. This would make it clearer for readers using the Xbox One and Nintendo Switch, and potentially other consoles which will probably gain the Bedrock Edition.

For the Education Edition, I think there is probably only a need to create a version page should there actually be updates/features added which differ from Bedrock Edition. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe most of the exclusive features were added in the 1.0 Education Edition release, and hence there would be no point creating a version page for each subsequent version if they simply follow the Bedrock Edition progression. GoandgooTalk
12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It is confirmed that Fire OS and Fire TV will also have a cross-play access. The Education Edition, I guess we can just redirect the version page into the equivalent version of Bedrock Edition, with a section of differences between two versions called Education Edition on the very bottom of the page. But I'm afraid that there will be an update to EE that have no relation between the two versions. – ItsPlantseed|⟩ 16:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we can manage Education Edition as a separate edition even though it runs on the bedrock engine. My initial fear was that there would be more of these types of editions (bedrock but no crossplay) which would have made a bit of a mess. --Pepijn (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Java Edition is just as technical. As long as "Bedrock" in general is adopted as the term by the community, there shouldn't be any confusion between Minecraft (Bedrock) and Minecraft: Bedrock Edition. MajrTalk
04:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I am starting to lean more towards Bedrock Edition (helps for simplicity sake as well). So currently I support Bedrock Edition and Legacy Console Edition. GoandgooTalk
08:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Education Edition will most likely continue to get features exclusive to it. It is very different from the other editions, so much so that I think it would cause more confusion to associate it with Bedrock since it doesn't have cross-play with any of the other Bedrock titles. It also has Classroom Mode and Code Connector which are free companion applications that no other edition of Minecraft has, in fact the whole concept of the companion app isn't even applicable to the other versions of Minecraft. I promise sometime soon I'll get some time to sit down and flesh out those pages! :) --HelenAngel (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
But are the features that it SHARES with Bedrock different in any way? Is there any page about a feature both in Bedrock and Education where we would need to specify some sort of behavior that only occurs in Education (or only in Bedrock and not in Education)? I get that it's an Edition on its own with all the exclusive features, but our current plan is to associate colored sections to specify what behavior occurs in which edition on pages about features that are in multiple editions but behave differently across them. So would we even need such a section for Education Edition? --Pepijn (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There are features they share, however it is important to note that they are fundamentally very different. For instance, Education Edition does not support cross-play with any other Bedrock editions. Since Education Edition is actually more of a tool/platform than a game, it doesn't have things like the Marketplace, or even in-game patch notes, or an in-game seed picker, or the ability to upload custom skins. The environment is very different as well as it was purposely designed to be as restrictive or as open as an individual educator needs. The game play is not even fundamentally the same- there are additional inventory spaces that can be controlled by the host. In addition, in-game settings allow for rapid changes on-the-fly, including a global pause which is not present in any other version of Minecraft. The login itself is fundamentally different as is the purchasing- it can only be obtained through Windows Store for Education and to even access the game, a person needs to log in with a Microsoft Education account. --HelenAngel (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The history of Minecraft should be Java edition first. Skylord wars (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Please provide arguments. --Pepijn (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Opportunity for CSS stylesheets[]

At the risk of being shot down in flames, let me mention an idea I've mulled over for some time. It closely parallels what we're undertaking in this project so it should take little additional effort, if any. The idea is this: Could we give edition-specific sections of articles different CSS classes, generated by whatever edition templates we finally settle on to mark the sections? Default stylesheets would produce the same style for each of them, preserving the current look, but users could use custom stylesheets to collapse out information for editions that don't interest them. Maybe we could even let logged-in users choose such a stylesheet in their preferences. With irrelevant editions suppressed, readers would enjoy a smoother reading experience. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, is this something you'd be able to demo somehow? Or is this existing on some other wiki? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It's been a very long time since I did any CSS, but I'll try to work up something. If there are any CSS gurus reading, hints would be more than welcome. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the infrastructure for this is already present. You can see it in your Preferences, at the top of the Appearance tab. There seem to be two levels of stylesheet customization, one for Hydra and a global one. I'll have to research how these are supposed to interact. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Gamepedia has now confirmed to me that this is permitted and should be possible. (In fact, they're discussing whether they should try to come up with a more elegant solution, though of course they can't give a timetable for it.) So I'll start working on a demo page now. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This is something I've wanted for years (since pocket edition came out, basically), but I've never pursued it because it would require changing basically every page on the wiki. Since we're doing that anyway, now is a great time to implement it. The CSS itself is pretty simple, it's just the implementation details to work out.
In my head, I've always seen it as a drop-down box where you pick your favoured version (placed at the end of the heading using indicators), then the content of other versions are collapsed, showing just a stub saying something like "5 PE version exclusive features" (assuming we were to group the exclusive features together in a section). Additionally, there could be a checkbox to hide other versions entirely. The functionality would just be a simple JS script which sets the appropriate preferences to load the gadgets (localstorage for ip users), same as MediaWiki:Gadget-refTooltip.js already does. The drop-down box could be replaced with checkboxes to allow selecting multiple favourite versions.
Unified/Bedrock Edition only
Since we're encapsulating edition specific information, we can also take the opporitunity to use improved styling. I'm thinking a dashed border in the canonical colour for the edition, perhaps a rather transparent background in the same colour when the section is hovered over, the editions icon and name can be at the top. This paragraph is a simple example of the styling, minus hovering, which can't be done inline.
Small exclusive features in the middle of a paragraph could use similar styling, with a tooltip stating that the highlighted area is exclusive, which replaces the heading in the full paragraph version. This, I think, would look much nicer than the {{only}} tag which we use now. MajrTalk
07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you do a test page to see how that would look? – NixinovaBook and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png Map (item) JE2 BE2.png • 07:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example of section styling. MajrTalk
12:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks great. Would we duplicate info that is true for multiple versions and thus use 3 sections on almost every page (since the CSS idea is to only show stuff for the editions you're interested in?) or have other sections for general information true for all editions and just specify what is different in the appropriate sections? --Pepijn (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It's looking great, but I wonder how it is for articles with only minor variations between versions. For your test there you've used the different crafting methods on each platform, however how would it work for pages where there are minor variations between versions - Dye is an example of this. How would this work to eliminate duplication of information so that the same information isn't repeated three times on each page? GoandgooTalk
05:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I added examples of "inline" references, for minor variations. However the issue that occurs to me now, is how to display features exclusive to a couple of editions, a.k.a "Unified & Java Editions only". Perhaps a multi-colour border/striped gradient background? (border example) This would still limit us to 2 editions with the same feature. A 3 colour border seems quite difficult to do, unless they are layered rather than overlapping. MajrTalk
06:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it definitely looks much cleaner than what we have currently with the only template. Regarding the exclusive features in multiple editions, I think the dotted border looks pretty good. We only need to have a 2 colour border as the maximum as there essentially are only three version types anyway. So all in all we'd have the following border types:

  • Minecraft (Bedrock) only - orange
  • Java Edition only - green
  • Console Edition only - blue
  • Minecraft (Bedrock) & Java Editions only - orange and green
  • Minecraft (Bedrock) & Console Editions only - orange and blue
  • Java & Console Editions only - green and blue GoandgooTalk
    07:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to see what we decide on, what with education edition, and potential other non-unified bedrock editions causing issues.
I thought I should note, it occurred to me that this design should work fine for platform specific features too, as we can keep the colour for the parent edition, and just change the title to specify the platform(s) it applies to (and put a platform logo in for good measure). Also, for the inline references, I don't plan to have those hidden in any way, unless we can implement it in a way that work break the flow of the sentence. It may be possible to allow hiding with list entries, however. Although in the demo above, that would just leave a single list entry, which would look odd. Maybe it will just have to be enabled on a case-by-case basis. MajrTalk
10:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I asked HelenAngel on Twitter, she said all Bedrock Editions are gaining cross play with the exception of Education Edition, so I think it still stands that we have three main versions/editions of Minecraft. Regarding hiding version-specific features - is this something that we can do retroactively? Could we convert everything to this new style and then later on decide whether it's possible to only show info for Java Edition for example? GoandgooTalk
01:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Hiding specific editions would be a user preference, the only thing we would decide is just how hideable things are. Hiding edition-specific information within a sentence (or list) could make the sentence awkward, so it likely wouldn't be hideable, or would require individually specifying that it can be hidden (and thus write the sentence in a way which still makes sense when part of it is missing). Sections should always be hideable, as they should always be distinct from the rest of the article, and won't be missed if they disappear. However, we could also make sections not hideable in individual cases if that were to make sense somewhere. MajrTalk
05:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Now that we've established the Education Edition is essentially a separate edition, when would we be able to start implementing this? It could sit alongside {{only}} until pages have fully converted over to the new format. I see that Sealbudsman has been updating computer edition to Java Edition and having this template ready would be able to further assist with this process (this template could automatically apply the relevant Edition specific categories without them manually being added). As above, I believe we can have the following different border types:
  • Bedrock Edition only - orange
  • Java Edition only - green
  • Console Edition only - blue
  • Bedrock & Java Editions only - orange and green
  • Bedrock & Console Editions only - orange and blue
  • Java & Console Editions only - green and blue
  • Education Edition only - grey?
I don't think there's a need to consider any more combinations with the Education Edition, as that version contains specific additions while still sharing the bedrock codebase. GoandgooTalk
06:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you about Education Edition.
As an update, I've been just using search results for "computer edition" and for "computer version" to find pages to switch to java / add 'specific information' categories that aren't already using "only" tags (or where it would be awkward to do so). Still to-do is that there are 70-some "pc edition" pages and 70-some "pc version" pages which need the same thing. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 07:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I ran into some issues with the colours, as the green and blue were too similar, and were hard to distingish in the border, additionally, I couldn't find a way to have two background colours which didn't look awful, so I ditched it entirely. I tried changing console to purple, but weirdly it looked cyan when next to the green, so I ended up changing it to yellow. You're welcome to suggest alternative colour schemes, I added a test of all the variations. As for education edition, we could steal blue from console now, which makes more sense since education edition logo is blue. MajrTalk
12:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to use darker colours, at the moment I feel that the light colours of the borders blend in too well with the page background colour. Also, I feel like what made the previous test really stand out was the different coloured shading, is there any way we could somehow keep that without making it confusing? Perhaps another idea is to use solid colours for when a feature is exclusive to one edition and the dotted border if it is not in a certain edition? Just throwing different ideas out there.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the legacy console edition seems likely to be ultimately phased out in favour of the bedrock edition, so this could simplify things somewhat. GoandgooTalk
14:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I think spliting edition specific information from the main text like this is a splendid idea. I was thinking of the thing. To fix the colour problems, you could make the coloured borders 4px wide instead of 2, which would make it more easily recognisable. But alternatively, we could also just forgo all edition specific colours and have them all the same colour. It doesn't need to be fancy like this, we can easily distinct between the different editions with an icon (as in {{message box}}), logo (similar to {{exclusive}}) or even just the initials in a link with the full name in hover (e.g. "BE"). In my opinion that would look more standardized than unique colours for each (combination of) edition(s).
Secondly, I also think we should definitely keep one regular paragraph separate from the edition-specific blocks though. As feasible on a case by case basis. – Jack McKalling [ Talk Contrib ] 15:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What if some information are in two versions? Mix the colors together? Overlap the spans? Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) at 9h29:17 | 2/10/2019 (UTC)

Exclusive features pages[]

What should happen to the Pocket Edition exclusive features page? What about a Java Edition exclusive features page? I think both should still exist in some form. GoandgooTalk
05:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well since PE is now the main version *sigh* I think Pocket Edition exclusive features should be removed and Java Edition exclusive features should be created. – NixinovaBook and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png Map (item) JE2 BE2.png • 05:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose, nothing is the "main version". See this discussion. IMO, we should have a Minecraft (PE, Win10, new Xbox/Switch), Java Edition and Console edition (Playstation for now atleast and the old console editions) exclusive features page. --Pepijn (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 Neutral. I see the way you were saying, but is it needed anyway? Currently, the wiki doesn't have exclusive features page for Java Edition, and almost the features that were listed on Pocket Edition exclusive page are not transferred yet onto the related page. So I think the same thing should happen for Java Edition after the Better Together Update was released. – ItsPlantseed|⟩ 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I meant that we shouldn't see anything as the main edition anymore, so I'm fine with no "exclusive features" pages at all. But if we make/have one for one edition, we should have them for all the others. --Pepijn (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
There are always going to be features that only appear in one version. One example is putting potions in cauldrons. The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
True, but the question is if we want/need a separate page for them. --Pepijn (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
What about a single Exclusive features page, with sections for all three? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose That would make the page too complicated. The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
That's fair, I could see that. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think exclusive features of Pocket Edition should continue. Skylord wars (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Exclusive template[]

I made a template for exclusive features, based off User:ItsPlantseed's on [[Template talk:Desktop]]: Template:Exclusive. Example of the template:

Legacy Console Edition.png
This feature is exclusive to . 

NixinovaBook and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png Map (item) JE2 BE2.png • 05:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we use this instead of {{t|desktop}}, {{t|pocket}}, etc? – NixinovaBook and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png Map (item) JE2 BE2.png • 06:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a template we could definitely use, but I think we should decide on the name of the Bedrock Edition (as above) first before using this. GoandgooTalk
06:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Computer edition specific information[]

When {{only}} was changed to output "Java Edition", it caused the pages in this category to instead be added to Category:Java edition specific information. That is, all except 4 pages: Blaze Powder, Carpet, Item (entity)/ED, and Jukebox still appear on the old category page and not on the new one. It's as if they were still using the old version of {{only}}. I can't figure out why. The templates seem to be correct. Category maintenance is a real-time function of MediaWiki, isn't it? Can anybody explain this? – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Auldrick: Editing categorizing templates doesn't apply category changes immediately for all pages.
An easy fix - go to the affected pages, and perform a null edit - open the editor, don't change anything (except edit summary and checkboxes - these are ignored, except watchlist - pages will be added there if you don't uncheck) and save. Nothing will be added to history or RC. It's basically a purge that also affects categories. I've done that for the 4 pages you linked already. (Or you can just wait, the category should be updated at some point.) --Hubry (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Main page[]

I think we're all in agreement that the wiki needs to be reoriented to not favor the computer edition. Our intent has been to fix this as part of this project, since the project will touch so many pages, but in reality the reorientation effort doesn't depend on the release of the Better Together update: It can begin right now, and the more reorientation work we do ahead of time the less chaos we'll have when the update comes out.

I've been looking at the Main Page Minecraft with this in mind. The orientation is there, in both subtle and obvious ways. I propose to split out the Java-specific information into a new Computer Edition page (which currently redirects to the Main Page Minecraft). Then, when the update comes out we can simply move it to Java Edition (currently also a redirect to Main Page Minecraft). Until then, we can start fixing wikilinks to go to one or the other depending on which page is implied by the context. We can get a lot of this project's work done in advance this way.

Since we're talking about updating the Main Page, I'm looking for consensus on this plan. If I get it, I volunteer to split the main page Minecraft and present the results for review by the community before changing Main Page/editcopy it. I'm also asking for opinions on whether to create a new project to cover the reorientation, or to keep it within this project. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit: One more thing: It's likely the reorientation won't be finished before the Better Together update comes out. If we create a project for the reorientation, it should be merged back into this project at that time. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

One moment: Computer Edition and Java Edition actually redirect to the Minecraft page, a separate page from the Main Page. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Arghhhh! I can't believe I did that! Fixed now. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 Support! I think keeping it within this project would be fine. Maybe just make a bullet point for it on the project page. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 Support One thing I would question is starting with the name "Computer Edition", since it is already called the Java Edition. The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 00:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I went with Computer Edition because it has a history of usage and because the name Minecraft: Java Edition isn't official yet, but I like your idea better. After all, M&M have announced the name, so there's virtually no chance it'll change. What do we do with Computer Edition then, leave it as it is or redirect it to Java Edition? (Java Edition will have an {{about}} for linking back to Minecraft.) – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The name "Java edition" is pretty official already. The latest Minecraft news articles on minecraft.net have used that term to describe the edition. Since Computer Edition is a bit confusing (considering Minecraft Bedrock edition will also be available on computers with Windows 10) and not as official we should use Java edition instead. --Pepijn (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Does that mean you would favor deleting Computer Edition at some point? It's a redirect, there are only about 10 pages that link to it (and those should be changed anyway), and it has never been edited, so it doesn't seem like that big a deal. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 03:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe make it a disambiguous page directing users to either the Java Edition page or the Bedrock(or whatever) edition page because of Win10? Once those pages exist of course. --Pepijn (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I would keep the redirect because "Computer Edition" usually refers to the Java Edition.
@PepijnMC: We could put {{redirect}} on the Java Edition page. The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 03:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That would kind of suggest that the Java edition is the main edition for the computer, which can be pretty subjective and other topics on this talk page have been talking about avoiding these things. IMO it's better to completely get rid of and avoid any favoritism towards any edition so we don't have to change a ton of small stuff in the future (like we have to do now). --Pepijn (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think just making the page Java Edition would be the best option to prevent having to redirect the page in the future. I think replacing all instances of Computer versions on the wiki with Java Edition is something we can do immediately before the Better Together version has been released. I would even support moving all computer version pages to be preceded with Java Edition, however what should happen to all the Pocket Edition pages (including all Pocket Edition version pages?) Clearly the Pocket Edition label is no longer sufficient. GoandgooTalk
06:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 Disagree I think that would take a lot of work, and is unnecessary. I think the future cross-platform updates should be "Bedrock Engine/Edition/Whatever 1.x" – NixinovaBook and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png Map (item) JE2 BE2.png • 04:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the Main Page did not treat the Java edition as the Main edition as well as Pocket. Skylord wars (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
This topic is about the Minecraft page, it was confused with the Main page by the creator of the topic at first. The Minecraft page did favor the Java Edition, but it has since been updated and a lot of its content has been moved over to the Java Edition page. --Pepijn (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Education Edition[]

Could we please get a separate section for Education Edition? While powered by the Bedrock engine, it is considered by us (Minecraft Studio) to be a completely separate edition with different features, different uses, etc. I know we have a page for it but I'd like to build it out with more information and differentiate it from all the other versions of Minecraft. --HelenAngel (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fair, I've made a minor edit and separated out the Education Edition from the Pocket category of the Minecraft template. In terms of where else Education Edition should be displayed, my view is that we probably don't need to really mention it that much outside the articles where it deviates from the Bedrock edition (i.e. we can definitely do more to properly describe them on pages such as Chalkboard). Similarly I don't really think we need to put it in the history templates except for where there are exclusive blocks (again on Chalkboard for example). GoandgooTalk
04:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel like the pages about Education Edition aren't as fleshed out because it's a bit more exclusive than the other editions. Most editors (I think) have no experience with it.--Pepijn (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on it. I've just been completely slammed as of late with all my other work! --HelenAngel (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Which one should I move?[]

Do I need to move Asset update, Pre-release, Release candidate, Build and Joke update? --Beans1512Talk/Contribs 11:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Project's next step[]

Now that it looks like the transition to the Bedrock Edition is all but confirmed (see the FAQ on Minecraft.net), are we at a stage where we can start moving and renaming Pocket Edition related pages? I don't see a need necessarily to wait until the edition (version 1.2) actually drops seeing we already have the first betas and it is very clear that the change is happening.

Also are we as a community in agreement with referring to this unified edition as the Bedrock Edition and the previous 4J studios version as the Legacy Console Edition? GoandgooTalk
14:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As eager as I am to get started changing Pocket to Bedrock everywhere, I'm reluctant for the wiki to show a Pocket/Bedrock/PC/Java/Console/Legacy Console mashup for the week(s) it will take to get even the frequently accessed pages updated. It's unprofessional and makes the wiki look like the work of amateurs. [Oh...er...never mind. ;-)]. Besides, it's avoidable with no additional effort.
I'd like to propose a method that not only prevents the chaos but also allows us to get started editing right away with no changes appearing until we're ready and/or the BTU is released. Specifically, we can create some trivial templates to replace the common forms we use to refer to editions in prose and infoboxes. They would be named to make editing fast and easy. For now, they would generate the same text they replace. When the BTU is released, we can update them as shown and Blam! almost the whole wiki changes in an instant. (I imagine we should do it at a non-peak hour to spread out the server load from purging practically the entire page cache at once.) At first glance we would need the following templates:
Template Used in Replaces and generates After BTU generates
{{pelink}} prose and infoboxes [[Pocket Edition]] [[Bedrock Edition]]
{{pelink | <text>}} prose and infoboxes [[Pocket Edition | <text>]] [[Bedrock Edition | <text>]]
{{celink}} prose and infoboxes [[Console Edition]] [[Legacy Console Edition]]
{{celink | <text>}} prose and infoboxes [[Console Edition | <text>]] [[Legacy Console Edition | <text>]]
{{pe}} infoboxes PE BE
{{pe | link=1}} infoboxes [[Pocket Edition | PE]] [[Bedrock Edition | BE]]
{{ce}} infoboxes CE LCE
{{pc}} infoboxes PC JE
{{pc | link=1}} infoboxes [[Java Edition | PC]] [[Java Edition | JE]]
I left out a {{pclink}} template because the change from PC Edition to Java Edition is already well under way. I also left out a {{ce | link=1}} parameter, because I don't remember ever seeing CE linked in an infobox. What else have I left out?
If this idea doesn't fly, I suggest that we at least put a "Pardon Our Dust!" banner on the Main Page explaining why there's so much inconsistency and linking to a (Help?) page explaining which names mean the same thing.
After all that, I guess I don't need to say that I  Support getting started right away and those edition names are fine with me. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 02:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but personally I'm not too sure we need so many different intermediate templates during this change. It's not that different to when a new version comes out and for a couple hours/days the information needs to be quickly updated en-masse. GoandgooTalk
03:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it? I haven't done a lot of new version updates, but I have the impression it involves something like a couple of dozen pages and that the individual edits are all different, so barely noticeable individually. That seems very different from updating a small number of phrases and abbreviations repeated on hundreds of pages, most with the high visibility of a wikilink. That's why I'm worried that a lot of readers will be bothered by seeing our work half-baked. But then I'm very alert to PE-specific info since I only play Win 10 Edition, so I suppose I might have a skewed viewpoint. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey folks- we actually need to NOT call it "Bedrock Edition" because there is no Bedrock Edition. It's most certainly not Minecraft: Bedrock Edition. This will confuse people who will look for it in the stores & not be able to find it because that's not the name. Or who think there's a different version. Also, for everything but Xbox (& Switch later), there wasn't a relaunch- the edition names just got dropped. I do agree that we need to put a qualifier. Why not just Minecraft Bedrock & when it's referred to in text have it Minecraft (Bedrock). The whole point is that everything running Bedrock proper (not Education Edition or DS as they are special snowflakes) doesn't have an Edition name with it. --HelenAngel (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Also I can confirm that 4J Studios is working with Bedrock. --HelenAngel (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
So, would Bedrock Edition 1.2 be moved to "1.2", and the PC version pages would be renamed to Java Edition? The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 13:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"To Bedrock 1.2 if this goes through. "1.2" would suggest there is a "main" version, which we are trying to avoid. --Pepijn (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This is more about pushing the company's agenda than about what is good for the wiki and it's a bit late to come up with this again now don't you think. We had this discussion a long time ago (you were involved) and Majr agreed with me on "Bedrock Edition" over "Minecraft (Bedrock)". Just because the official title doesn't include "Edition" does not mean this is not an edition of the game. "Console Edition" was never an official title but the wiki used it anyway. We can't call it just "Minecraft" here, like Mojang decided to do (for some reason). It creates confusion, which is why you stated before that Mojang will be using the term "Bedrock" as well (which makes me question even more why you didn't go for that name officially). This is an edition of the game Minecraft (like Java Edition), so I'm personally going to treat it as such and I think it's wise if the wiki did the same: Java Edition, Bedrock Edition and Legacy Console Edition. We don't want to give the idea anymore that one these editions is the "main" edition, which is what calling it "Minecraft (Bedrock)" would do to a certain extend (whether it is intended or not). --Pepijn (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Microsoft Marketing wants a simple generic name to draw public attention to its newest product, away from Java. Community Relations wants to reassure Java players that their game, whose name was stolen for its new brother, is still just as important as it ever was. These goals are in conflict, and the wiki is being caught in the middle. At the moment, Java players publicize the game more than MS itself does, so MS courts that community. But ultimately, Bedrock players will take over as the YouTubers and Twitchers and Java players will diminish until they become an elite corps of Minecraft hackers antagonistic toward Microsoft. For now, we need to continue our plan to be neutral, but when conflicts like this arise we need to consider our eventual future. I think we might need to moderate our stance on whether there is a "standard" Minecraft. --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Majr needs to weigh in here, since he objected to using "Minecraft (Bedrock)" in page names.
The nut of the problem seems to be that by styling it "Bedrock Edition", we've made what was intended to be a description look like it's a name. We did that because we actually need a name for it, because most of our mentions of the Bedrock product are in {{only}} templates, which display them in notes where brevity is required, or in prose set in contrast to "Java Edition", where a phrasal construction would blur the contrast and could lead to confusion (not to mention just being stylistically awkward). But Microsoft's name is useless on the wiki, where "Minecraft" means the game as a whole. No matter what we might substitute for "Bedrock Edition", its distinction from an actual name is going to be subtle at best because we have no choice but to use it as one. I'm not sure we can solve this problem to Microsoft's satisfaction.--– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how it is any different to what we did with the Console Edition name. Console Edition was never used on any public branding as far as I can tell, but we decided it would be a suitable name to encompass all the Console Editions. We've had these discussions regarding the names since June, the community consensus appeared to be for the Bedrock Edition title which I still prefer. Neither Minecraft (Bedrock) nor Bedrock Edition are official names anyway so I don't see it as being an issue. GoandgooTalk
01:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been working on making our edition templates more flexible and maintainable. While doing so, I realized that it might make everybody happy if we simply made a visible distinction between official edition names and the unofficial terms we use to refer collectively to the Bedrock and Legacy Console "editions". I have modified a test copy of {{Exclusive}} to demonstrate this. As an experiment, I also restyled "Bedrock Edition" as "Bedrock version" and made "Legacy Console Edition" lowercase so they look like descriptions instead of names. This only affects the template output, not the link, so we wouldn't have to rename our "Bedrock Edition" pages, although I think we should consider doing so for consistency. Please take a look at the result and comment. I'd especially like to hear from HelenAngel about this. Would everybody find this acceptable? Note that if we adopt this, we'll want to make similar changes to {{only}}, but since that always outputs italics the restyling would be the only visible change. The test template is here. --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, a version is not an edition. Bedrock (or whatever you want to call it) is an edition of the game. "Version" is used for "1.12", "1.13", "1.2", etc. So I  Disagree with naming it "Bedrock Version". It would make it even more confusing and it doesn't solve anything.
About the style, most people aren't going to link a different style with the name not being official. It would be something for the more active users to know and notice. Helen's concern was that people would try to search for "Minecraft Bedrock Edition" on a store and not be able to find anything, this is not going to help with that at all. Honestly, I don't see this is a big problem, the page has links to all store pages on it. --Pepijn (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "people aren't going to link a different style with the name not being official" is nonsense. Do you think they don't know the difference between "the white house" and "The White House"?--– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
They know "the white house" is different from "The White House" because they know it has two different meanings. In this case, people often wouldn't even notice that it's not italicized and if they do they won't think "This must mean it's not official, so when I search for this in the <insert platform> store I must just search for Minecraft!", simply because they don't know our intention. It's still a good thing to do, because semantics (like SuperGeniusZeb said), but I don't think it's going to solve the problem Helen brought to our attention (I could be wrong of course). --Pepijn (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
And how do they know it has two different meanings and which meaning is which? Because it's capitalized! Even someone who's never heard of "the Executive Mansion" can tell from its capitalization that it means something more special than the common constructive meaning of those words. Also, see my response to SuperGeniusZeb below. --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think making official names italicized (e.g. Xbox 360 Edition, Minecraft, & New Nintendo 3DS Edition), and making unofficial names not italicized (e.g. Bedrock Edition & Legacy Console Edition) is probably a good idea regardless of whether or not people notice the difference, simply for the sake of semantic accuracy.
However, I don't see how changing "Bedrock Edition" to "Bedrock Version" makes any sense. The term "version" can be confused with version as in update pretty easily. As for removing the capitalization from the unofficial names, I don't really think that's a good idea either. They may not be official names, but on the wiki, they're basically the "official unoffical names", so they should still be treated as proper titles that should be capitalized, shouldn't they? 🤔 SuperGeniusZeb (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Please note that in my restyling I specifically do not capitalize "version". I'd also like to point out that we use the capitalized word "Edition" with two meanings, yet somehow we expect and trust our readers to know which one we mean. If ambiguity is the determining factor, you should be arguing my point of view because mine is the less ambiguous choice. However, ...
I myself questioned whether changing it to "version" would create ambiguity, so I did a search for "version" across all pages. I looked at the first 400 results, culling out version history pages (by far the majority) and tutorial and mod pages (because they tend to be of lower quality grammatically and semantically). In the remaining pages, I found 11 instances where "version" was used with what I judge to be its common English meaning (e.g. Windows 10 Edition, Torch, Andesite) and an additional 8 where it was actually used as a synonym for our restricted meaning of "edition" (e.g. PlayStation 4 Edition, Altitude, Slime). Both we and our readers have read these pages many, many times without finding them ambiguous, because people know the common meaning of "version" and our restricted use doesn't replace it, it augments it.
I concede that qualifying it as in "Bedrock version" is ambiguous in isolation, but in actual use it would almost never occur in an article in lowercase and without a following a version number unless the unrestricted meaning is intended, so the theoretical ambiguity is moot.
I think we have allowed ourselves to become narrow-minded about how we use the term "Edition", and that we make possibly unjustified assumptions about how well our readers have inferred what we mean by it. Nobody looking at this template's output would think for a moment it was talking about a specific, but unidentified, update. --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
TL;dr: If people can't tell the difference between "version" in "Bedrock Version 1.2" and "Bedrock version", why do we assume they can tell the difference between "Bedrock Edition 1.2" and "Bedrock Edition"? At least in the first one there's a capitalization change! --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 20:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with being narrow-minded, it's about being consistent with terms. Java Edition, Legacy Console Edition, Xbox One Edition, PlayStation 3 Edition, New Nintendo Switch Edition, Bedrock Edition. Why change one of them to "version". If it's about being unofficial, why does nobody (including Helen) care about the name Legacy Console Edition (Helen even proposed this one, capitalization and all)? You and Helen are seeing problems where there are none. We can't use the "official name" because it doesn't work so we had to come up with our own and we decided on Bedrock Edition because it was consistent with every other edition name. Even if you would want to break this consistency for some reason, why go with "Bedrock Version"? Why not "Bedrock Engine" or "Bedrock Codebase" (terms which are used more often than "Bedrock version"). --Pepijn (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I would support bedrock version. Since bedrock is not the official name, our name should sound as casual as possible.
"Bedrock Engine" and "Bedrock Codebase" sound too technical for this condition. The BlobsPaper JE2 BE2.png 01:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
How is "Bedrock Edition" not as "casual" as "Bedrock Version"? I didn't list names to suggest them, I want to keep using "Bedrock Edition". --Pepijn (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
For the reasons above, I don't support the "version" moniker. Personally I think the italics/non-italics difference is enough. GoandgooTalk
02:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The "consistency" you speak of is an illusion: Bedrock Edition is a very different animal from Java Edition or even Pocket Edition. It has no currency outside the wiki, not even the limited related (not identical) meaning that "Pocket Edition" has. Neither does it identify the platform, as the others do. The only thing it equates to is the code base, and "code base" is not a term most people have any concept of or would see as relevant when they're trying to learn how to enchant their sword. So although "Bedrock Edition" looks like it means something concrete, most people don't even have a concept for it. They'll substitute a concept they're familiar with, and that's a formula for misunderstanding.
"Bedrock Engine" and "Bedrock Codebase" are proper nouns with their own denotations. Adding another meaning to one of them just substitutes a new ambiguity for an old problem; I don't think that will get us anywhere. And please note that in every case I have not capitalized "Version". I will strongly oppose any suggestion of doing so, since that gives it the form of a proper noun. It would soon become a name, and then we'd be right back where we are now. Have I not yet made it clear why I think using a name is the kernel of the problem? Names have special denotations that people have to learn. Until they do, they're subject to misinterpretation. Descriptive phrases can simply be read for what they say. It's the expectation that we must continue using a name that I meant when I talked about narrow-mindedness. --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 02:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I will say this once again and then I'm done with this discussion because you don't seem to get it. You're looking for issues where there are none. This was discussed before and it was agreed upon that "Bedrock Edition" was going to be the name we would use, which we did without any problems. "Bedrock version" will not be any better for the reader than "Bedrock Edition", they simply don't care. People who won't understand "Bedrock Edition" will not miraculously understand "Bedrock version" just because it uses another word but non-capitalized, because it's not that part of the name they won't understand. You're overthinking this way way too much, the average reader is not going to think about this for more than half a second. "Console Edition" has been used for years despite being unofficial and being very different from Java Edition (it's a collection of similar but slightly different editions) without any issues, because there's no problem with it. Bedrock Edition is even more similar to Java Edition than Console Edition is, because there are less differences across its various platforms. The only reason why "Bedrock Edition" could be troublesome is because of the "Bedrock" part and not the "Edition" part, which your "solution" does not solve. The reader does not care about semantics. --Pepijn (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there's no point in us arguing this further since we can't agree on what the problem is, or even that there is a problem. I also acknowledge your accusation that I'm "overthinking this way way too much" as possibly a fair one, so I will retire from the discussion as well unless asked personally for a response. --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 03:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Page prefixes[]

With 1.2 right around the corner, what pages are we going to move, and should someone set up a bot?

Will we be moving Java versions to have a "Java Edition" prefix? Or should they stay at their current title, and have bedrock versions at "Bedrock (Edition)"? What about Legacy Console; will they still be at Console Edition version history or get a separate page?

The Pocket Edition and old (current) Console Edition pages should not be moved, as they are different versions.

What are your thoughts? – Nixinova Book and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png Map (item) JE2 BE2.png 03:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

With regards to page moves, it will pretty much involve moving most pages with Pocket Edition in the title to Bedrock Edition (without brackets as they do not work too well in page titles). I think all references to Console Edition should be changed to Legacy Console Edition including page names.
Which pages are you suggesting not to move? Already existing Pocket Edition version pages could stay with Pocket Edition in their titles, but then this would create inconsistency (and the Pocket Edition has always been built on the Bedrock platform anyway, with the current page titles not reflecting the Windows 10 Edition either). I wouldn't mind prefixing Java Edition version pages though. Pages such as Xbox One Edition could stay where they are currently with a message at the top indicating it has been superseded. GoandgooTalk
04:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Java versions should have the Java Edition prefix, as all other editions do. The exceptions would be snapshots, pre-releases, and I also think that the update titles should be kept the same, such as The Exploration Update. This is because update titles are usually either exclusive to one edition, or the title is shared between two platforms, but the same content is being added, such as the Update Aquatic. One of the problems, though, will be fixing the history template to reflect on the new names. Somebody else will have to change this, as I am not experienced with editing advanced templates such as the history template.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Should we follow what minecraft.net writes , such as Grass paths were added to Minecraft in version 1.9 (https://minecraft.net/en-us/article/block-week-grass-path). What about the version such as The Friendly Update (Pocket Edition)? Should the Pocket Edition tag be removed? If we really need the tag, we need bots to fix the problem. Skylord wars (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, I do believe that it would be okay to remove the Pocket Edition tag for the Friendly Update. However, something we do need to do if we decide to remove the tag is to specify the updates that are in the Java Edition. Currently, for example, the Update that Changed the World page says, "It is the name for Minecraft version 1.7.2, a major update released on October 25, 2013", but mentions nothing about the update being for the Java Edition. The problematic thing about this is that many pages will be needed to be edited at once, and even if we use a bot, some of these will involve many different types of edits, in addition to putting the Java Edition prefix.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe like changing from The Update that Changed the World is the name for Minecraft version 1.7.2, a major update released on October 25, 2013. to The Update that Changed the World is the name for Minecraft: Java Edition 1.7.2, a major update released on October 25, 2013. will be better.
And also (1.7.2) from 1.7.2, the first release of The Update that Changed the World, was a major update to Minecraft to 1.7.2, the first release of The Update that Changed the World, was a major update to Minecraft: Java Edition.–Preceding unsigned comment was added by Skylord wars (talkcontribs) at 03:08, 16 January 2018‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
But it wasn't called like that yet at the time, so wouldn't that still be a little confusing? What about this:
1.7.2, the first release of The Update that Changed the World, was a major update to Minecraft: Java Edition ("Minecraft" at the time)Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 09:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking it would be best to mention that it's Java edition specific, but not put it down as Minecraft: Java Edition. I know it sounds confusing, but an example would be something like (new content is in bold), "The Update that Changed the World is the name for Minecraft version 1.7.2, a major update to the Java Edition that was released on October 25, 2013." It's not a great example, but that's the sort of idea I had. I do think it's much better than having to put down Minecraft: Java Edition but then have a note that it was just called Minecraft at the time.
Also, as for the numbered editions, such as 1.7.2 and 1.9, I don't think there would be any need to specify in the text that it is specifically for Java Edition, as if we add a page prefix, the title of the page will already specify the edition, such as Java Edition 1.9. Other editions did this as well - for examples, the lead section for the page Pocket Edition 1.1 doesn't mention anything about the update being for the Pocket Edition - it just says so in the page title.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 Support. The best way for it is The Update that Changed the World is the name for Minecraft version 1.7.2, a major update to the Java Edition that was released on October 25, 2013." Or maybe adding a note to it. Skylord wars (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
What about updates after 1.12.2? Skylord wars (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
For updates after 1.12.2, I'm actually not sure what would be best. Currently, though, if you look on the page Update Aquatic, you'll notice that is says it's the name for "Minecraft: Java Edition version 1.14...", so it may be best if we continue this for future updates, or at least the non-numbered ones. For numbered updates, I don't think it would be necessary to specify the edition at all, as there will already be the Java Edition prefix, as well as the "This article is about the Java Edition. For other editions, see Version history (disambiguation)".--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose As a knee-jerk reaction, I do not support adding a "Java Edition" prefix. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
As an addendum: I do  Support renaming the categories (as seen on Category:Java Edition versions); I only oppose renaming the articles. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

About renaming certain pages[]

Please explain why the following pages should be renamed: – Dentedharp90041tce 11:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Category:Pocket Edition versions should not be renamed. Skylord wars (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Names[]

Some pages for versions are named incorrectly. For example, there is no such version called [[Beta 1.9-pre3]]. However, there is one called "Beta 1.9 Prerelease 3". The version was never ever called Beta 1.9-pre3. This really bugs me - probably more than it should - and I think that this project is the perfect opportunity to fix these errors.

Additionally, there are some versions that are total duplicates of other versions, yet they both have their own pages. For example, 1.4.5-pre and 1.4.5 are exactly the same versions - you can even match their checksums; they are totally and utterly the same. This is the case for some other prereleases. To solve this, I feel like we should merge such pages.

HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 21:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Agree. We should follow the version name displayed in-game. With regards to merging pages, I think we should simply leave a redirect into the "duplicate" page. – ITechieGamertce 14:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This has mostly been fixed—all pages now use the display names—but the possibly duplicated version pages still remain. The page for 1.4.5 pre only lists 11 fixes while the main page lists 70+. I need to be sure the versions are actually the exactly same before they are merged. If you can confirm that the pre-releases are exactly the same I'll merge the pages. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 00:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Pre-releases were all merged a while ago. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 06:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Page section Inventory#Bedrock_Edition still needs attention (fixed)[]

The Bedrock Edition section of the Inventory article needs some renaming. There is still a mention of "PE" remaining in both the text and the {{upcoming}} template calls. I'm not sure how to fix this myself, I just wanted to point it out in case it was overlooked. I'm not a participant of this project yet either. I was going through some unrelated maintenance checks and came across this article that way. Thanks :) – Jack McKalling (tcp) 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been fixed in the mean time, thanks. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 00:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Specify an in-game feature for other editions[]

On many pages, certain blocks, items, or gameplay mechanics have an additional feature for one edition or a feature that is not true for that edition. However, on some pages, it is not mentioned anywhere that this is true. For example, on the "Sword" page, it mentioned nothing in any of the sections that swords can be used to block in the Legacy Console Edition, before I added this information. The closest thing it did mention is briefly the history for the Legacy Console Edition mentioned, "Added the ability to block, giving the player more options in combat," but it doesn't even specify that the player blocks by using a sword. Although this subject is not renaming articles, I feel like it's an important topic to mention.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Add java edition prefix[]

So, are we going to get a bot to add the Java Edition prefix to all numbered version pages? Or is there something we're waiting on?--Madminecrafter12TalkContributions 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. I rarely even see someone using the word "Java Edition 1.12" ever. Plus, before BTU, all updates do not contain any prefix. We should preserve history. The Bedrock Edition version number is also based on the Java Edition. If we ever move the pages, the pages would make a ton lot of redirects. Skylord wars (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. Honestly, I'm not really leaning towards either side, I'm kind of  Neutral, I just brought this up because it was something that was discussed a while back and just completely abandoned (it seems like that happens a LOT on the Minecraft Wiki).-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta JE2 BE2.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta JE1 BE1.png 15:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding the "v" to alpha versions[]

The alpha version pages (e.g. Alpha 1.0.14) are missing the "v" in their version number. The correct version number for this page would be "Alpha v1.0.14". I think we should move these pages to correct their names (leaving redirects, of course). ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 21:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Support - do we really need the redirects, though? All they would do is clog up the search box and crowd out other queries. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support, only Alpha pages, not Beta pages. We do need redirects or it would break a lot of the pages. See https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Alpha+1.0.0&namespace= --Skylord wars (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
in which case, any of the links from such pages could be manually repointed? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support. I also strongly support keeping the redirects. Keeping them would prevent a lot of confusion with readers when searching, and would prevent a lot of broken links.--Orange Glazed Terracotta JE2 BE2.png Madminecrafter12TC 03:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine repointing the links on any affected pages, provided said pages are of encyclopedic value. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Java Edition prefix (again)[]

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed move. Please do not modify it. Any editors wishing to make further comments should start a new topic.

The result of the discussion was Add Java Edition prefix to all java version pages except snapshots, pending further concensus.

Bedrock is slowly catching up to Java in versioning and very soon we will have "1.15" and "Bedrock Edition 1.15" in the same articles. I propose that all java release versions, and possibly alpha and beta versions, be prefixed with Java Edition. I know there have been a million discussions about this and I've moved it to this page because the CP becomes outdated quickly. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 04:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC) (edited 6th, 9th & 14h Feb 2019)

Still  Oppose from me. --Pokechu22 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The page titles should be consistent imo; having certain Java versions titled as "Java Edition 1.x" and others simply "1.x" would create more confusion. I'm  Neutral about renaming all of the Java version pages, although I think it would definitely be clearer to refer to them as "Java edition 1.x" instead of just "1.x" when a Bedrock version with the same number is mentioned in the same article. –Sonicwave talk 07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per Skylord wars. -BDJP (t|c) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That reasoning is from a year ago and is no longer true. The Java prefix is as used as the Bedrock prefix. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support. It's no secret on the wiki how I feel about implying the preeminence of Java Edition despite our past consensus that we shouldn't. However, I forbear from pressing the issue merely on principle, because that would just be fussy. But the possibility of confusing or misleading readers with an unqualified "1.15" reference does not seem trivial to me. And if we have to break with the traditional naming style anyway, I see no reason not to continue it in future versions, especially since there's every reason to expect further collisions later (e.g. I imagine there will eventually be a Java 1.16). – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support prefixing all JE version pages with "Java Edition", eventhough I'm used to the unprefixed page titles. There have been name conflicts already, so lets just thumb up to our Java Edition pride and prefix anyway. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png ] 08:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support. Technically it makes more sense for Bedrock Edition to be the one without prefixes since it is the one without a subtitle. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all JE pages should be prefixed all BE pages unprefixed though. Rather than prefixing all JE pages like suggested above, I think it could make more sense to just prefix all versions since the Better Together Update. Either way, I support using prefixes to prevent confusion when the version numbers converge. jahunsbe (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment there's quite a few supports here and the the opposes are easily addressed. BDJP007301, no-one leave out the prefixes any more, it's always "java (edition) 1.14", so that reasoning is outdated. Pokechu22, would you care to expand on your reasoning? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 00:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Still no support, not willing to expand on my reasoning beyond what has been said before. I'm mostly just disappointed at this point that it's even gotten this far. I'm not sure exactly how that will affect my future edits, and I know it's a petty thing to get upset over, but that's how I feel right now. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose (see my (now new) vote below) per Skylord wars. I simply see no point in renaming. In all honestly, renaming computer edition version pages should've been done when Pocket Edition was initially released (as 0.1.0) in order to prevent confusion, even if it wasn't a concern back then. It seems that we're now trying to disestablished something which most, if not all of us, have gotten used to, because Bedrock just so happens to come quite close to computer concerning version number.
Speaking of renaming, we also had chances to rename computer edition versions to prefixed pages when Pocket finally entered 1.0 and when it was renamed to Bedrock with release 1.2. We also had a chance when the PlayStation versioning system appeared to be 1.xx. But I guess with all things, something has to happen first before something is done. If this goes through, however, I'll still be referencing computer edition versions unprefixed and BE prefixed. —DarkShadowTNT (t ♦ c) 20:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Paraphrasing, "It should have been done earlier and we didn't do it, so now that the problem is looming we still shouldn't change something which most of us have gotten used to": I see no logic in that argument. It seems like you're saying either that our editors' convenience is more important than our readers', or that we should only make changes before it becomes necessary to do so. What do you really mean?
"If this goes through, I'll still be referencing computer edition versions unprefixed": Are you saying you intend to defy the consensus if it doesn't go the way you want? – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 21:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
First paragraph: make changes before something like BE coming close to computer version number. Second paragraph: I'm stubborn, especially when it comes to cases like these. Probably has to do with the region I come from. So yes, I intend to defy consensus (I may add I still consider the computer version (or what others refer to as Java Edition) as main version, whatever others say).
If the rename had been done a lot - and I mean a lot earlier (probably with first release of PE), I wouldn't have issues with it. Now it seems to me like an arbitrary proposal, because I'm fairly certain we saw it coming one way or another. —DarkShadowTNT (t ♦ c) 13:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Having thought a bit more about it and hearing what others have to say, I now  Support this proposal, on the condition that JE version pages are moved to Java Edition <version>, with redirect. When BE catches up, this redirect is converted to a disambig, listing both JE and BE version, with a short summary of what was added and/or name of the update in question. Yes, I can compromise eventually sometimes.DarkShadowTNT (t ♦ c) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support Per Auldrick-- 20:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose As you see in Java Edition menu screen,
Java Edition 1.18.2.png
, the bottom left corner clearly states Minecraft 1.13.1. So there is technically no need for a "Java Edition" prefix to be added. skylord_wars (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And on the home screen of bedrock edition it says "v1.9.0", so no need for the prefix right?... You see the problem with that? Of course it won't say "Java Edition 1.13.1" because it doesn't need to, like how in game in bedrock it says just "beta" because the prefix isn't necessary in-game. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 22:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I  Support this, and support abandoning treating Java as if it were still the sun that the other editions orbit around. It's really not how it is anymore. The cutoff might have been around when Better Together came out, or when Java got the subtitle, or some year close to that. If you go back to when PlayStation Edition or Pocket Edition were invented, Java was still the big, central thing, so I think the version naming was fine at that time. But Java shares the spotlight now. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I  Support, this, as it it discriminates BE players. 20:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Should we try to wrap this up or something? The pages have already been moved back and forth three times. These opposes are easily addressed. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 19:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Huh, I didn't comment on this yet appearently.  Support. FVbico (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A month of discussion and so far the only opposition seems easily refuted:
  1. Requires lots of pages to be moved. Irrelevant, done with a bot.
  2. Creates lots of redirects. No problem with having redirects.
  3. People don't say Java Edition 1.12. No longer seems the case, and really depends on the circumstance. If you're a wiki that deals with all versions you obviously have to differentiate, and thus you would say Java Edition (hence the fact that we even say bedrock edition, despite it not ever being officially called that). If you're someone that only plays java edition with a group of friends, you wouldn't need to say the edition when referring to a version. You're certainly not going to confuse anyone by having Java Edition in front of the version number.
  4. It wasn't historically called the Java Edition. Renaming an edition doesn't change the association the versions have with that edition, just like how an item being renamed doesn't create an entirely separate item. Also when pocket edition originally came out, people would natually say "java 1.12" or "the java version" or maybe "the original version" when needing to differentiate, so it already had precedent before Mojang renamed the editions.
  5. It's not part of the version number in the menu. Irrelevant, no edition shows the edition in the version number, as it's obviously not the version number for any other edition.
Meanwhile on the supporting side there is consistency, removing bias, reducing confusion, matching official terms, and eliminating naming conflicts. All seem to have clear and demonstrable benefits, so I'd say this is a certainly a consensus. If you really want to stop this happening, someone better come up with some compelling opposition, otherwise I would say close this as approved very soon. MajrTalk
03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree with Majr. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Majr: I agree (I guess you saw the long discussion on Discord). I don't think we should wait months and months and months for an exact percentage of people to support and otherwise do nothing, when there is clearly a consensus to perform this action; that seems silly to me. How much would your bot be able to do as far as moving the version pages goes? E.g., would it be able to detect if a corresponding BE page exists for a version page, and if not, make the old title a redirect and if so make it the following:
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' may refer to:
* [[Java Edition {{PAGENAME}}]]
* [[Bedrock Edition {{PAGENAME}}]]
If there are too many limitations to your bot for this task, I'd be absolutely happy to move and update everything myself.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me | View what I've done) 03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Can easily have it check for other pages and create disambigs, however to start with they would need to be redirects as we'd best fix any links pointing to them first. MajrTalk
04:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple of subst:s should be added there but I think it would be better just to keep redirects for a bit while we change redirect links and also while readers get used to the change. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Nixinova (talkcontribs) at 05:23, 20 February 2019‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
I still do not support it, and it's unlikely that I'll ever support it given that I'm just that stubborn (possibly to the point that my opinions can be discounted, though I'd rather that weren't the case). I can say that points 3 and 4 are not entirely accurate; I rarely ever use such a prefix, and your "when pocket edition first came out" thing is definitely untrue; such differentiation was not needed back when PE first released and I think it only started coming up when "windows 10 edition" started being a thing (because that name is sufficiently confusable with "computer edition"). It definitely was not the case that as soon as PE released, people started using "java edition". I don't know exactly what to say here, just that that statement doesn't jive with me.
Also, some of the recent moves were made by _very_ new accounts (created just before moving the page): Special:Log/Nukeisgaming and Special:Log/Lilbluedevil32145. The move button isn't visible as an IP, so it's not like they clicked a move button and were prompted to create an account. This just seems super suspicious to me and I'm not happy with it, though I don't know if there's any reasonable motive that could be drawn from it. --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Those probably came from me adding the move notice to 1.14, which might have encouraged people to make an account just to move it. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 08:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As someone that only plays java, obviously you wouldn't need to specify an edition, as was mentioned. As a wiki that does deal with multiple editions (and as someone myself that dealt with multiple editions), points 3 and 4 are true.
It's pretty common to have random people move prominent pages once a move notice is added. When you have a lot of people looking at a page, there will always be a few that just see a move link and want to click it, not really knowing what they're doing. MajrTalk
04:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Still  Oppose per Pokechu22. -BDJP (t|c) 14:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no specific reason for supporting or opposing this idea, but I would  Support for consistency with other editions. --HaydenBobMutthew (talk, contribs) 05:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support --Capopanzone (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should do this so i will give this a  Support. SincerelyFeather JE3 BE2.png MoMoCool2005 (You can talk to me) 19:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it's safe to move these now, but I do have one question. What should we do about Alpha, Beta, Classic, etc.? Should we move all of those to, e.g. Java Edition Classic XXX, or should we only move the official release? Should we only move Alpha and official release, as Alpha is duplicated by Pocket/Bedrock versions, but leave Classic as is because there is no BE Classic? Discussion/clarification would be appreciated.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me | View what I've done) 17:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Alpha and Beta definitely, but it's probably okay to keep earlier versions at the current title. I don't have any strong opinion on moving pre-Alpha versions but alpha, beta and release versions should definitely be moved now. (But if you're going to be moving In(f)dev versions, maybe move them to "In[f]dev [0.31] yyyymmdd-n" or something at the same time("Indev 20100203-2" for example)) – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 18:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support – It would make the names of version pages clearer and separate the various editions better, instead of the need to know that non-prefixed version number are java editions, whilst the other are clear and concise. Holroy talkcontribs 22:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support — It is much more better, more consistent, and less confusion between editions. —HaydenBobMutthew (talk, contribs) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Well then, I'm going to consider this approved. Now for actually performing the move, I figure we start by creating the new names as redirects (including pre-release versions), change the templates to link to the new redirects (and replace any other links, as they may end up as disambigs eventually). Then once we're happy with the titles, move the pages over the redirects (hopefully including pre-release version for consistency, but we don't have to), and create disambigs where necessary.

This is the set of redirects proposed, including the date conversion suggestion (some already exist):

01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached? Should the pages start to be moved? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've created the redirects, so we can now start changing any links to point to the new titles. Currently the consensus seems to be to change everything except snapshots, which have no consensus. MajrTalk
06:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead with moving. I'm not sure if I'm happy with the Indev/Infdev naming scheme though, I'll have to think about that. - User-12316399 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added the prefix to {{version nav}} and {{Java Edition versions}}. {{Version link}} should probably be changed but that has full protection. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 18:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the snapshot pages to a separate section. There's a clear consensus for moving the rest of the pages now, so can it be done? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Approved. Now that all the templates are pointing to the new redirects and broken links are fixed, I'm going to write the bot and start moving pages, then find which redirects need to be disambiguated, make sure there are no links to them and then convert them. MajrTalk
11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Prefixing snapshot pages[]

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed move. Please do not modify it. Any editors wishing to make further comments should start a new topic.

The result of the discussion was prefix all snapshot pages.

Moved to a separate sectionNixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose moving snapshot pages. I'm neutral with all the rest. - User-12316399 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving the pages, because it makes things less confusing for bedrock users. I also think that the unprefixed pages should be kept as disambigs, if there are multiple versions with the same number, or as redirects, if there is only one version which uses the number. 13:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 Agree completely with IP. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose moving snapshot pages. There's nothing ambiguous about them as they are an abnormal format but it will be otherwise inconsistent with the rest.  Support moving everything else. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
While the snapshot numbering is unique, can we assume everyone knows that? If I was just finding out about the game, I wouldn't know that only java uses that format for snapshots, and if they're not under java edition like the rest of the versions it might be confusing. Especially since bedrock doesn't canonically have an edition name, so you might assume the unprefixed versions belong to bedrock. MajrTalk
06:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Change to  Support. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving pre-releases,  Oppose moving snapshots as they use a different version numbering.-- 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving both snapshot pages and prereleases. Even though the snapshot pages are uniquely named, it would be kind of odd to leave them the only pages without a prefix. Obviously they would not be talked of as Java Edition 00w00a, but it makes sense for consistency. If the snapshot pages were not the only pages being left without a prefix, it might make more sense. The prereleases either way would be confusing and inconsistent without a prefix since they are so close to the normal versioning.
It could be argued that the Alpha, Beta, Alpha Server, Classic, Indev, Infdev, and Pre-Classic versions already have a prefix and don't need another added on. I'm not opposed to this idea and I might weakly support it. jahunsbe (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The prefix can be ambiguous though, as there are alpha versions of bedrock, and just moving alpha would of course being very confusing. MajrTalk
06:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Prefixing them makes sense then. jahunsbe (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving snapshot and pre-release pages, in order to be consistent with every single other update page. FVbico (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 Support per FVbico and Nixinova. --HaydenBobMutthew (talk, contribs) 05:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving pre-release pages for consistency,  Neutral on snapshot pages. –Sonicwave talk 05:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving everything to "Java Edition" prefixed. Because eventhough e.g. "Classic" was a version before any other edition than Java existed, Classic was still written in Java and not C++. It is conclusively Java Edition, even before it was called such. Snapshot pages also same story, they belong to that edition, regardless of whether their naming is exclusive for it or not. It'd be far better to have full consistency than exceptions everywhere. New people don't know these things, like Majr said. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png ] 08:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hai, I  Support this.--Capopanzone (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Strong oppose moving snapshot pages - it's obvious what edition they're for, since it says so right at the top of the article within the infobox, and I doubt anyone would be searching for "Java Edition (snapshot)". Linking to snapshots within pages would also be better with Java Edition left out of it. It'd create a lot of unneccessary redirects as well. - User-12316399 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It still makes sense to prefix them for consistency. Unless other pages are left unprefixed as well, they would be left the only JE pages without a prefix. If the pages were moved, the created redirects would not be unnecessary. As you said, people would probably most often search without the prefix, which would utilize a redirect. Redirects are considered cheap anyways. jahunsbe (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Support moving Classic, though, since it's a development period in itself (I'm considering possibly dropping the "Classic" in the page name, though, when these get moved to Java Edition naming, since "Classic" is a completely retroactive name for the period and it already says what development phase it's in within the top of the page). - User-12316399 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 Support as it just makes sense to use the prefix for the snapshots to have a unified name scheme. (Delycache (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
I feel like there's a clear consensus to move them; only 2 opposed (for the same reasoning (it's a unique naming scheme)) and one of those changed it to support.
Just to be clear, it may have a unique naming scheme, but, as Majr put it perfectly "While the snapshot numbering is unique, can we assume everyone knows that? If I was just finding out about the game, I wouldn't know that only java uses that format for snapshots, and if they're not under java edition like the rest of the versions it might be confusing. Especially since bedrock doesn't canonically have an edition name, so you might assume the unprefixed versions belong to bedrock.".
I'd say, go and start to move the pages. FVbico (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose since it seems like I missed this discussion, for the same rationale (or lack thereof) I did before. --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Please provide a useful argument in this discussion, you're not helping its progress and only stalling it by opposing blindly. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill JE2 BE2.png Diamond Pickaxe JE3 BE3.png ] 08:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose moving snapshot pages. 22:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Reason? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 08:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 Strong oppose - No reason to move as java edition snapshot version names do not clash with that of bedrock or legacy console editions, etc. Will lead to more redirects as well. liach (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
All the redirects already exist. And while they don't clash, it's more a question of consistency. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 08:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 Support for consistency. But for the record, I think all the Bedrock pages should be labeled as such, too. And further for the record, I think the Java edition should forever be the core edition, for the reason that the PC is a superior gaming platform - the Java version is inherently more open and flexible (for modders, etc.) - the same basic (political?) reasons I support open source coding: It's more democratic, more free. I say these things not to open a can of worms (or a side discussion), but to set up a contrast: I disagree with the decision Mojang made when they decided to switch to Bedrock as the primary platform, which is the ultimate reason why we have to have these discussions now. But all that has to be set aside - they made the change, and it is what it is. My frustration with them is irrelevant; this is about making the best decision for managing the information about the game in the current scenario, so I support the original proposal for that reason alone. Memetics talk | edits 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 Support - It doesn't make sense to me to leave the snapshot pages unprefixed. Velentos (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 Support for the reasons provided above. The key points of those who opposed and explained their opposition are the following:
 1) This will create unnecessary redirects with are problematic to link to:
  Redirects are not in any way a problem. Linking to redirects is absolutely not a problem anywhere except navigation templates, and I don't think there are more than one of them. Additionally, interwikis on other wikis are going to work as before.
 2) It is obvious which edition these pages belong to:
  Only because you already know it. As has been pointed out above, Bedrock players may not be familiar with JE snapshot numbering.
 3) Not mentioned above, but in case someone does think of it: even though such a mass move means templates and modules may need to be adjusted, not only are such adjustments regular wiki operation, this may lead to code simplification given that such a total move would mean equivalence between being a Java Edition version article and having the title prefixed with "Java Edition".
--AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Attempting to rebut those arguments:
  1. This is valid, as long as those don't become disambiguation pages or otherwise get broken later on. For snapshots, it's unlikely that that will happen given the unique name format, and the damage has already been done for (and I've already made some complaints about) other versions.
  2. This is not valid; why should the title need to indicate what the subject is to those not already familiar to it? By that argument, Dirt should be Dirt block (or more literally, Block Dirt). If you don't know what something is, you look at the article and it should be immediately obvious... and it's not the kind of mistake you make twice for these things. And most of the places where these versions will be seen will have other context that makes it clear that it's JE.
  3. So would not having done this in the first place. While simpler code can be nice, it's the end result that matters; it's easy to write code when you have no content but clearly we shouldn't remove all content... the amount of effort needed to implement something here shoudln't matter. And will those templates and such continue to produce useful information if you look at older revisions of pages, for instance?
--Pokechu22 (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The redirects and everything are already linked to. The only change this proposal would make is the display names of the pages. Everything else has already been changed to point to the Java-prefixed pages. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 00:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't change my opinion in any way, and if anything makes my rebuttal to point 2 more poignant. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. Modifying a redirect, including making it a disambiguation page or an independent article, is regular wiki operation, as is updating interwikis and other links. This argument, in its original form in this discussion, has a structure of "harmful, therefore unnecessary". This structure in invalid and operates from the implicit premise that the move isn't necessary.
  2. You aren't even rebutting my argument. I have pointed out that some opposition above was just "since it's obvious [implicitly: to everyone] what edition those pages belong to, the move isn't needed". I have demonstrated that it isn't obvious to everyone, and therefore such reasoning cannot be used to conclude the move isn't needed.
  3. Once again, you aren't even rebutting my argument. I have pointed out that a potential argument is "we'll need to change our templates, thus the move is harmful (extra work) and therefore unnecessary". I have demonstrated why such an argument would not be relevant.
In addition, my points have only shown that a substantial portion of opposition is refutable. Meanwhile, arguments supporting the move still only have much weaker opposition. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 09:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't care anymore. This whole thing has been causing me an inordinate amount of stress, and I'm going to take a month-or-so break from editing in general (I have disabled email notifications, so should the move eventually happen I won't be troubled by and go mad over 300 more move emails). I still don't support the move, but ... I just don't care to talk about it anymore, and for my mental health I'm going to go away for a while. (I've waited longer for doing this than I have in other similar situations because I don't want the information I care about to deteriorate as that would be counterproductive, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can maintain it so I really shouldn't be placing that level of pressure on myself.) So, have a time. I'll probably be back someday. --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This has gone on for a few months now with mostly supports. Half the opposes are from random IPs with no reasoning, and both lordmuzik and liach's opposes are for the reasoning of "it will create more redirects"; these redirects already exist so this will not change that. I don't understand Pokechu's "Dirt block" argument: if there were multiple blocks called "dirt" then of course they would have disambiguation, but in the form of brackets (though other disambig methods are preferred to bracket disambig, per Wikipedia). For the reasoning of "it doesn't clash" (which is what i also originally argued) its more a question of consistency: we moved pre-classic through Infdev even though those don't clash to fit in with the other version pages. Having the snapshots unprefixed while everything else isn't just leads to confusion: the version after "19w14b" is "Java Edition 1.14-pre1", which is inconsistent. Can we wrap up this discussion before it fizzles out? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 04:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned with over-specificity and I think it would be better if made consistent, so I  Support. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it has enough support for it to happen, most points against it have been refuted. I'd say go ahead with it. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there seems to be a consensus for moving the snapshot pages; might look into moving them (with my bot account) in a few hours. –Sonicwave talk 00:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 Support.  Nixinova T  C  01:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The pages are currently in the process of being moved by User:Sonicbot32.  Nixinova T  C  06:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The moves should be all done now. –Sonicwave talk 07:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding "v" prefix for Bedrock Edition versions[]

Bedrock 1.18.32.png

As seen in this image, a "v" prefix is used before the version number. If the "v" prefix could be be added to Java Edition Alpha, a v prefix should be added to Bedrock versions too. That should solve most of the problems. skylord_wars (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Weak oppose: In the beta version debug text and on the feedback site it doesn't use that. We usually go by the in-world name not the main menu name.– Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 18:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak support. PE uses "v0.0.0 alpha" and while the "v" is part of the page name I don't think we let can solve the problem of that inconsistency. But I guess adding the "v" is closer to in-game, and probably as close as we're going to get. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 08:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC), though It'll be inconsistent with the beta versions. Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose: For my own opinion is that this will create a large amount of extra works in other languages. --Lxazl5770) 14:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose: V just stands for version, and it is unnecessary to add a v to all update numbers because it's already heavily implied. 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 Strong support - the names of version pages should be made to match the names of the described version as close as possible (excluding the "Minecraft" prefix). The history templates could be easily adjusted and redirects left in place for searching (not linking) purposes. - User-12316399 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose – The release changelog doesn't use them, and it's not in common use when referring to the versions. Holroy talkcontribs 22:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose The "v" isn't part of the version number, the reason it's on the title screen (and nowhere else) is to indicate that the random number on the screen is a version number, whereas on fully qualified version pages that fact is obvious and doesn't need a "v" to indicate it. MajrTalk
00:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per Majr. -BDJP (t|c) 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per Majr as well.---Humiebee Discuss anything with me Look at my edits 22:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 Strong support becuase The java edition alpha versions also have a v so that would be consistant.---Humiebee Discuss anything with me Look at my edits 22:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note that (at least for Alpha) the wiki currently has the names of Pocket Edition versions round the wrong way; for example, the version described on its page as "Alpha 0.8.0" is actually called "v0.8.0 alpha" in-game, as opposed to "Alpha v0.8.0". So the issue here does run a bit deeper than simply tagging on an extra "v". - User-12316399 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be sort of confusing having pages titled "Pocket Edition v0.8.0 alpha build 1" because the dev phase can easily be confused for just another alpha/beta build. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start a new discussion for fixing that. FVbico (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


Versions like 1.4.6-pre are not actually called that in-game. Its jar is under "1_4_6", the launcher calls it "1.4.6", and in-game it's just "Minecraft 1.4.6". Should these be moved to "1.4.6 Pre-release" or something? That's what Mojang calls it in the blog post. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 22:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest move to 1.4.6 (Pre-release) instead of the ones without brackets. —HaydenBobMutthew (talk, contribs) 04:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done Removed the "-pre" for all and added "(pre-release)" for conflicting versions. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 07:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthered this proposal and merged the pre-releases into their parent versions since they're identical. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I hate this project[]

I'm sure you're already aware. But I figure it requires restatement. I hate this project, and I think it was a mistake from the get-go. Now that you've vandalized a lot of redirects used externally (which used to be the pages in their rightful place), a lot of other wikis will be completely broken. And not just other-language gamepedia wikis, but other wikis entirely (and, even, things that aren't wikis -- old reddit comments, for instance). This just ruins all of the thing. So, nice job breaking it, hero. --Pokechu22 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What links have been "vandalised" due to this project? Who are you talking to here? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 19:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Lordmuzik. Of course. I've reverted all the previously-java redirects so links should work again. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 19:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Apologies for my tone, I've just been grouchy and on-edge lately (for a number of reasons, such as this). Getting a bunch of move emails kinda set me off. This was more of an emotional reaction than a reasoned one, though I think my complaints are valid. I'll try to keep calmer in the future, but... gah. --Pokechu22 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record, my points here still stand -- interlanguage and interwiki links are still broken by these disambiguation moves (which have happened again). --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to be specific, it will be Mojang AB who made this change.--skylord_wars (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)