Why create this page?[]
I am confused as to why this page was created. The Upcoming features page lists all of the new features for an upcoming update. Therefore this page is useless. 72.68.68.219 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree. This goes on the Upcoming Features page. Also, 1.8 can be known as the Adventure Update. Dragon29 29 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- See this topic; it's part of a plan to rework the way we list upcoming features and version history. -- Orthotopetalk 01:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Basically, we're splitting up each version to their own page, so they're not all crammed together on the barely usable version history pages. As a side effect of that, we can create a page for a planned version, then when it comes out we just remove the planned text from the page, rather than copy the text from the upcoming features page, losing all the edit history.
- For now, this will only apply to 1.8 and its snapshots, while we work out the best way to do this. Then it will be applied to previous versions and other editions. –Matt ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)- So this is like a test project, shouldn't there be a project link on top of the test pages then? -- TheWombatGuru t | c NL Admin 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's no project. –Matt ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 04:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)- I know there isn't an official project page, but it is kind of a project, so I think readers should be informed that it's kind of a test thing. -- TheWombatGuru t | c NL Admin 15:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's no project. –Matt ᐸ Talk
- It's as much of a test page as any other page on the wiki, as in it could completely change at any point. It's not testing an incomplete change, rather it's to prompt feedback on the current planned change. Wouldn't want to just rush into creating hundreds of pages, only to find there are problems or many people don't like the change and then we have then to go and fix those hundreds of pages... –Matt ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's as much of a test page as any other page on the wiki, as in it could completely change at any point. It's not testing an incomplete change, rather it's to prompt feedback on the current planned change. Wouldn't want to just rush into creating hundreds of pages, only to find there are problems or many people don't like the change and then we have then to go and fix those hundreds of pages... –Matt ᐸ Talk
Taekwondopsycho (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I think they should leave this page alone. After all, they always split every update into its own page. And besides, they already changed the upcoming features page to 1.9, so why put this again on upcoming features?
- You do realize both that 1.8 had been released, and this discussion was resolved 7 months ago, with the version pages migrated because of it? --KnightMiner (t|c) 00:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"That's Numberwang" splash[]
wikipedia:User:Numberwang - possible reference? His/her userpage shows the text "thats Numberwang (timestamp)." Meeples10t ~ c 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Far more likely: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Funny/ThatMitchellAndWebbLook . The TV show predates that user account's creation. -- Orthotopetalk 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Name?[]
I know no names have been released, but can anyone guess what do you think the update will be called. Maybe command update...? Willingham yAAOz (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Like you said, no official names have as yet been released. But as stated in this blog post by Mojang, the update will focus on Survival Improvements and Adventure Map Improvements. Maybe something like, "Survival Adventure 2.0"? I don't know; we'll have to see when it happens. -Exhelah ·
· 22:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"Do you want to join my server?" splash text[]
Tell me that's a Frozen reference. IT MUST BE. :3 –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.21.114.2 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2014(UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
- ...Or, it could simply be a ridiculously common phrase, since it's basically the most straightforward way to word such a request. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Frozen is pretty popular at the moment, plus that splash is pretty in rhythm with the song's first line, I doubt it's just a common phrase. Just my opinion tho. 123.21.114.2 12:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- The specific phrase "do you want to join my server" probably isn't terribly common outside the Minecraft community, but within it, I can guarantee it gets lots of use. Even discounting Minecraft, though, questions structured as "do you want to x" are ubiquitous. There is no reference here, unless you get word directly from a Minecraft dev saying otherwise. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 12:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Additions and Changes[]
What qualifies something as an addition or a change? Some things in the change section, such as "When Villagers get struck by lightning, they turn into a witch" seem more like an addition, since it was not there before. I think "Endermen move slightly faster" is a better example of what a change is qualified as. --KnightMiner (talk|contribs) 03:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- This has been an issue which probably needs a guide somewhere on the wiki - there needs to be clearer rules on what is an addition and what is a change. There are a few instances where it's obvious where it's an addition/change. This is basically the entirety of the blocks category. For the mobs category, I think it should probably follow a similar format - Additions are for new mobs and changes are new stuff that existing mobs can have. (my opinion only). –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs
Edits 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is probably worth pointing out that, generally, if a given change is noted specifically as one or another in an official changelog or the like, that's probably the label we should use for it too, assuming there's not a pretty good reason for ignoring that label. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
New World Generation Option[]
Team Mojang posted it on their YouTube page here: TeamMojang - World Customization Preview (Minecraft 1.8) (or if you don't trust the link, search it yourself). It's worth noting the customization options they've made available. You can change variables to suit your world needs or try the presets. ~CyUzi (anon)
Doors are now added to the closest village?[]
Can anyone tell me what "Doors are now added to the closest village" means? It sounds like the closest village gets extra doors, or maybe there's supposed to be a door near your spawn point that leads to the nearest village? Neither of those seems likely, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean. Closest village to what? PuzzleMage (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Basically there was a long standing bug where doors would get added to a village not based on location but on some other mechanic. This allowed for mega Iron Golem farms like the iron foundry. The bug is now fixed so villages put the doors in the village closest instead. --KnightMiner (talk|contribs) 03:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What is this?[]
Whenever I open the debug screen and look at stained glass of any color other than white, this happens:
File:M10roundtripquestionstainedglass.png|500px
What does this mean? Meeples10t ~ c 21:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure, but see MC-53478. They're probably just not done working out how to incorporate those several types of blocks into the plugin api, in the way they want. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's indicating that converting the old 4-bit block metadata format to the new and back again gave a different value. See this forum thread for some details. Anomie x (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Will we be making a shorter version of this page?[]
This page is getting to be a little bit colossal. Is there going to be a shorter version of this page, in the vein of the The Update that Changed the World and Horse Update etc pages, or does that typically get created later? Or has someone already started one? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most likely, this page will eventually be rewritten as a summary of the update, just as the two pages you pointed out are. That can't really happen, though, before we have a finalized changelist, which will require the update actually being *released*. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- After that, is there any value in keeping this big page around, in some way? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I believe there is, as the other updates keep the big page around. For example The Update that Changed the World has a longer changelog on the page 1.7.2. Then you can go back in the future and check when exact changes happened. Also, this wiki is one of the best "history-keeping" pages on the subject of Minecraft and we ought to keep it that way (I think). --Sanotht|c 17:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I do agree. – Sealbudsman (Aaron)
(t|c) – 18:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I do agree. – Sealbudsman (Aaron)
Summary section[]
Do we really need the summary section? It will just get removed when the update summary page gets made after the 1.8 release, and it is also rather incomplete when it comes to mentioning any non-survival features, such as commands and NBT. Plus its a little hard to read as it is mostly a list as a paragraph. --KnightMiner (t|c) 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Why the name?[]
Why is it called the bountiful update? ImAlecTNTonfire (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
/give portal blocks[]
so is there any way to restore this? mods? i dont get why this was disabled... 66.222.7.16 09:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Trivia section comparative trivia[]
| “ |
|
„ |
| — Style guide |
The entire trivia section compares the length of the update to other updates. Aren't updates a game element, and if so, should the trivia just be removed? --KnightMiner (t|c) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- So, are there any supporters of the trivia section? It extremely comparative, and the style guide rules against that for game elements. Are versions a game element? —KnightMiner (t|c) 23:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I support it too, same reasons as Goandgoo.
- On the other hand, it is already in the lead of the Bountiful Update page, and those named-update pages already talk about dates and development. – Sealbudsman (Aaron)
T, C, b 16:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Named update pages do seem to fit it better, as this page is really only about what the update added, and not really comparing it to other updates. —KnightMiner (t|c) 18:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Give command[]
Anyone know how to use the give command for maps in 1.8? The old way does not seem to work. Traisjames (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You need to use the name ids, the numerical ids are no longer supported. (it was noted in the article by the way) --KnightMiner (t|c) 14:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
bug fix sections[]
KnightMiner, yes they were fixed in the course of development of 1.8, but they were bugs from the 1.8 snapshots themselves – I think we are on the same page about that fact of the matter. But my issue is that I am not sure what benefit there is to list all the bugs that arose and then were squashed in development, that never saw it into a release version. I look at it as if the person viewing the 1.8 page wants to know about the improvements of 1.8 on the 1.7 versions, and if they wanted to see the sausage-making of development, they could go into the snapshot pages themselves. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 17:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Similar to how we don't say "horse saddle was added, then removed" on the 1.7.2 page for instance. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 17:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Basically what my issue is is that few sites actually describe what changed from the latest snapshot to the release, users who are upgrading from 1.7.10 know everything that is new, but not those upgrading from 14w34d. They are part of the timeline of 1.8's improvement over the last snapshot (which is unstated elsewhere) even if they don't fit into the timeline of 1.8 over 1.7.10. It is similar to the hotfixes: they were an issue fixed in 1.8 that was not an improvement over 1.7.10, but rather over an old 1.8 version.
- So yes, most of them never saw a release version, but I feel it is worth noting for the sake of those who played the snapshots. Maybe we could move it to a different article (such as [[1.8/Development versions]]), or have a subsection containing the 1.8 fixes (and maybe one for features should the need arise) over the last snapshot. –KnightMiner t/c 17:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see, yeah I think that would be a helpful section then. Maybe it could be renamed 'Fixed since final 1.8 snapshot' or something? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Something like that should work. –KnightMiner t/c 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still a little suspicious that the majority of those might be artifacts of the bug tracker not being exactly right – it seems an awful lot of bugs to squash in just those few days, and my gut says they must have been fixed earlier in development. But still I agree it's a good section to have. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- sigh... Well, guess who's confused regarding what bug report should go where. If anything, I think we should just leave it alone. -BDJP (t|c) 19:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the most part, it is being left alone; though I will describe to you what I have been doing:
- If the version is a released version:
- If the bug was from a version before the released version and was fixed in either a snapshot of the version or the version itself, then add it.
For example, if a bug affected 1.7.10 and was fixed in 14w02a, add it to 1.8. - If the bug was from a snapshot of the version and fixed in the version itself, then add it under the section we mentioned above.
For example, if a bug affected 14w02a and was fixed in 1.8, add it to the section in 1.8. - If the bug was from a snapshot of the version and fixed in another snapshot of the version, then don't add it.
For example, if a bug affected 14w02a and was fixed in 14w02b, don't add it to 1.8.
- If the bug was from a version before the released version and was fixed in either a snapshot of the version or the version itself, then add it.
- If the version is a snapshot, then list all fixes.
- If the version is a released version:
- –KnightMiner t/c 19:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the most part, it is being left alone; though I will describe to you what I have been doing:
| “ |
|
„ |
- I don't mind the bold revert; what I did was pretty bold anyway. But I'll explain what I did. Sorry for the initial confusion, but it's pretty simple I think:
- The 1.9 bug list is long, and contains both bugs that are very old, from before 1.4, as well as newer bugs from 1.8, etc. I thought it would help to put things in neat categories. Hopefully unambiguous, easy to understand, interesting and helpful-to-the-reader categories.
- To determine the category, I just looked at the first 'affected version' from the bug tracker. 14w02a for instance, is a 1.8 snapshot, so any bug that started out in 14w02a got put in the 1.8 category.
- If the bug first appeared in 1.5 or a 1.5.x snapshot, I moved it to a category 'From 1.5.x versions'.
- If the bug first appeared in 1.6 or a 1.6.x snapshot, I moved it to a category 'From 1.6.x versions'.
- If the bug first appeared in 1.7 or a 1.7.x snapshot, I moved it to a category 'From 1.7.x versions'.
- If the bug first appeared in 1.8 or a 1.8.x snapshot, I moved it to a category 'From 1.8.x versions'.
- Otherwise the bug first appeared in 1.4.x or prior, so it was put at the top, as a very old bug.
- I can vouch that I did look at each bug tracker entry, and according to the scheme I described, I sorted them accurately into those categories. The outcome I was aiming for was a way for the reader to see how long certain bugs had been around. This is fully compatible also with KnightMiner's scheme from the 1.8 page that we were discussing above – in other words, there is room on the 1.9 page for a section of bugs starting in a 1.9 snapshot that are fixed in version 1.9, once that's released.
- Hope this helps? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind the bold revert; what I did was pretty bold anyway. But I'll explain what I did. Sorry for the initial confusion, but it's pretty simple I think:
- Sorry.. I was going for unambiguous, chronologically linear and discrete, and I thought that would end up making it less cluttered. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. I thought about taking it to the community portal, but I didn't anticipate it being controversial. I'll revert the others as well; I'm not particularly wedded to it. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that there is a need to sort the bugs in some sort of order, simply listing 500 bugs is not really helpful for any reader. I think sorting by when the bug first occurred may be helpful, but often the versions listed on the bug tracker are not correct as users might not discover a bug until a long time after they occur. Whether this matters or not is another issue, as I think this is probably the best way to categorise 500 bugs. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 05:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
tool items when held now display smaller when looked from 3rd person perspective[]
tool items when held now display smaller when looked from 3rd person perspective