Talk: Java Edition 1.10

New Setblock

So what if I'm the first to say on this page? At least its relevant. Anyway, it says /setblock will be "/setblock ~ ~ ~ blue_wool" rather than "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool 11". Couldn't it be "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool blue" or "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool-blue"? By the way, if you want light gray with my first idea, it would be "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool silver". However, I think that you should also be able to use the number data. Maybe you could also put the name of the data on this wiki. Fyreboy5 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See the reddit comments in the reference; Grum states "blue_wool", along with proper syntax for declaring blockstates. It's possible this will change, but as far as I know this is the latest info we have on blockstates in commands. Skylinerw (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Taiga Villages

How do we know the Taiga villages are for PC edition? Jeb also works on MCPE, and he mentions MCPE in his tweet. And even if Jeb did confirm that it was for PC, we still don't know for sure that it is for 1.10. According to the recent cherry blossom thing, it shouldn't be put here unless specifically mentioned for 1.10. Once again, even if he did confirm the PC and 1.10 information, he said "Not sure yet, taiga villages often look messed up," meaning that they might not be added. I suggest we move this to mentioned features or something similar, as we did with cherry blossom trees. If anyone has any further information confirming that it is for planned for PC 1.10, please but it in the References section. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Two things that, for me, point to PC:

The tweet reads "Testing some ideas from MC:PE ..." which would be an awkward way of phrasing it, if he was testing a new idea for MC:PE.
Also the water in the screenshot doesn't look like MC:PE water, it's got a certain transparency in the distance that in MC:PE, would be masked by a more opaque blue.

What do you think about that? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 14:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

To your second point, yeah I support putting it in 'mentioned features' until further notice. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I see where people are coming from and why they think it could be 1.10. Thanks for your opinion and helping clarify some things for me. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done! -PancakeMan77 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Superspace:, is there a new source on whether taiga villages are being added? The sources on the page say Jeb was unsure about it, that's why we had it put on Mentioned Features for now. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 15:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. I'll move it back to the Mentioned features page for now, at least until we can get some confirmation that the changes to villages will be added in 1.10. Superspace (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Snapshots

It says that snapshots are not going to start appearing until April 27th in the first paragraph of the 1.10 page. We are already starting to see snapshots from 1.10. Should we update that statement? LCSKID

I have not seen any 1.10 snapshots, just 1.9.3 ones and a lot of people trolling that they are using 1.10 on twitter. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

But then what are all the pictures on the 1.10 page. The polar bear one, the Enderman one, etc. LCSKI

Those are just from the developers, they like to tweet teasers about what they're working on. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 00:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Okay. Thanks --LCSKID (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Structure block

Shouldn't this be listed as a change instead of addition? The structure blocks are already in the game, and used by mojang since 1.9, but they will only become usable by non mojang developers in 1.10 (you can already /setblock them at this moment). Yes, it does get a new texture, but it's not new to the game. FVbico (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 15:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Teaser pictures

Are we fine with removing them when the first snapshot for 1.10 is released, provided that the features shown in those pictures are in-game? Just wondering so I know for later. -BDJP ^(t|c) 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense since we usually don't keep them on the final version page. I'd be fine with it. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Will they end up in the "Gallery" section of their respective page? PancakeMan77 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense too, I think. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 21:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, moving them to the gallery of the article is was we usually do, or to mentioned features if they don't make it in the planned update. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nether Wart Block and other mentioned, unconfirmed changes

So we've been innundated by editors, all well-intentioned we have to assume, putting in the Nether Wart block, probably just because they're unfamiliar with how we're handling confirmed and unconfirmed features.

What if we had a section after Planned Changes, called Unconfirmed Features, with a see-also link to Mentioned features, a brief text stating that "the following features were mentioned for the PC in the course of 1.10's development, but have not been confirmed for 1.10" -- and then listed the taiga villages and the grass paths we see on Jeb's screenshot, and after that the nether wart blocks.

I think the strengths to this approach are

that it communicates the status of the feature on the page (which apparently is the only place lots of people are looking for it),
that it directs them to the Mentioned Features page, which can serve to illustrate the difference between a confirmed and unconfirmed feature,
it doesn't leave the page feeling, to the reader uninitiated in our categorization of features, that the page isn't "keeping up to date" or is "missing something".

Questions, comments, support or no? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 14:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a discussion on the level of the style guide: "In articles about confirmed upcoming major versions, should a section be kept that describes features which: 1) have not been explicitly linked by developers to this particular major version; 2) have been mentioned by developers during the development phase of this major version?"

Support, but close to neutral. May change my vote in the future if valid and severe disadvantages are discovered. --AttemptToCallNil, previously known as GreenStone (report bug, view backtrace) 14:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)