Talk: Java Edition mentioned features

Dirt Slab

I think Dirt Slab should be moved to Removed features, as it actually was implemented on Classic 0.26, and removed later. Therefore, I think Dirt Slab fits better to Removed features. What do you think? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Was that version publicly playable? If yes as I'd assume, I would agree to the move, and it should also be noted it in the history section of slabs. –KnightMiner ^(t·c) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, due to the screenshot taken I would say yes, because of course private versions cannot be accessed, and if it can't be accessed, a screenshot would not be able to be taken. Sorry if I took long to respond, is that the star on the notifications doesn't get yellow anymore when receiving a notification. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless the screenshot was taken by a developer. I'd assume it was publicly accessible though, due to the way the version history mentions it. So unless anyone has an objection, I would move it to removed features. –KnightMiner ^(t·c) 15:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The screenshot was taken and posted by Notch here. The next day he posted a video demoing slabs, using the 'stone slab' texture; the version number is the same. He mentioned updates on October 13 and 24; since the dirt slab test was on October 22, I don't think it was publicly available. It's possible he turned dirt blocks into slabs to quickly test how half-blocks would work, and never intended them to be released as a separate block. -- Orthotope^talk 17:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Mystery's solved. Let's end this thread. 45.19.3.17 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The thread had been ended for 5 years before you commented this. – Nixinova

20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Lanterns

"Lanterns were crafted blocks originally planned to be added in the Halloween Update... They were repeatedly postponed, until"

Uh, what? 209.58.128.135 04:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, that sentence was leftover from the rewrite, as the third paragraph covers the postponing. –KnightMiner ^(t·c) 05:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

They are cool and can stick on walls Villain Hidron123YT (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Rare Tools/Weapons

Rare Tools and Weapons should be moved to the the section "partially implemented" because chain armor already exists. Please statement your opinion.71.35.109.25 03:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Chainmail was already implemented into the game (and then obtainable in survival via trading) long before his tweets. His tweets are concerning a separate system of rare, unechantable loot with predetermined effects on them. Skylinerw (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki links - Need help

Because the former "Unimplemented features" article here was split up into into this one and Unused features, there are now problems regarding the interwikilinkiing by bots. For example, the Quiver page which is still available in some wikis, gets linked with some "Unimplemented features"-equivalent pages (which haven't been split up on other wikis than this one as far as I know) and the other way, and the removed features also mess around a little bit. I now have about no idea how to link them correctly. This is what I've gotten so far:
Unimplemented features

de:Nicht implementierte Features
en:Unimplemented features (disambiguation)
es:Características eliminadas
fr:Fonctionnalités non implémentées
hu:Nem megvalósított tartalmak
ja:未実装の要素 (exact same layout)
ko:Unimplemented features (in translation)
nl:Niet geïmplementeerde functies
pl:Niewykorzystane elementy
ru:Нереализованный контент

Unused features

Mentioned features

de:Angekündigte Features (in translation)
en:Mentioned features
zh:未实现的特性

Removed features

I'm not sure if I'm right with everything. Also, there may be more pages on other wikis, p.g. about the quiver, that aren't listed here yet (Some languages are even missing in this list). However, feel free to correct, update and verify the list above, that would be a great help! | violine1101^(Talk) 10:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

With the way it was designed, Unused features was the successor to Unimplemented features, so if desired the interwikis can point there. Likewise, Mentioned features was designed to replace Upcoming features and took pieces from Unimplemented features that did not belong. If you want, you can point the interwikis following that pattern, otherwise, what you have looks good.

As for the individual pages like Quiver, the best solution I can think of is to from the other wikis send interwikis to the page here that covers the topic (Unused features#Quiver for example), and leaving no reverse interwiki. If problem persist with incorrect interwikis being added, I know IdefixBot has a page listing interwikis that should not match. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 16:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Upcoming features-equivalents do exist on some wikis, which are pages that include both planned versions and some mentioned features, so I think Mentioned Features has no interwiki equivalents because I think it would be better to link those Upcoming features-equivalents to Planned versions. I think the problem is also that some pages (Rana or Quiver for example) redirect to pages like Removed features or Unimplemented features. The bot then sees, oh, there's a redirect, let's link Rana to Removed features#Rana and then it links Unimplemented features with Removed features#Rana (because of the quiver or the horse saddle or whatever) and Rana. It would be great if there would be a "redirect-blacklist" for pages like Removed features or something like that. Also, how about creating Minecraft Wiki:Interwiki portal for such interwiki cases? | violine1101^(Talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IdefixBot will no longer edit these pages until I find a way to solve the problem. • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I took the time to look at all these pages, I think that unimplemented features and unused features pages can be considered as the same pages. There are 2 different pages only in german. So I made a list of equivalent pages for me :

So I think that this would be the interwiki links list for all these pages. And for removed features, Violine1101's list seems to be great. I will probably edit all these pages with these interwiki links, and after, my bot will not change them. • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of the German "Nicht implementierte Features", despite translating to "Unimplemented features", it contains content more similar to our mentioned features, and even specifically states those features are not in the game. I would suggest using the German language's Unbenutzte Features (or "Unused features") instead for this list, and sending the first page towards the mentioned/upcoming feature list.

Other than that, the list looks good. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 03:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unimplemented features are not unused features. Unimplemented features were mentioned by a developer but haven't been implemented (yet). Unised features are features that are actually ingame but aren't obtainable in survival mode (pg giants). So, maybe we should link unimplemented features with mentioned features? Also, es:Características eliminadas looks more like removed features than unused. | violine1101^(Talk) 08:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unimplemented features when it first existed contained mainly features that existed but did nothing. The problem was due to the ambiguity of title and the fact it allowed mentioned features, features mentioned by developers got placed there a second list of ideas mentioned by developers got placed on "Upcoming features". Because of that title ambiguity, I renamed "Unimplemented features" to "Unused features" during the rewrite.

As for es:Características eliminadas, the article is similar to our late unimplemented features article, which contained unused, mentioned, and removed features, like most of the other pages on the list. As such, any place we send it would not be an identical page. The main reason sending it to "Unused features" made the most sense is because we already have the "upcoming features" pages to send to "mentioned features", so focusing on the unused features content makes more sense. Overall, any way we do this will not be a perfect match –KnightMiner ^t/_c 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you KnightMiner, this is very complex... • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 16:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is really complex - The most wikis use their Unimplemented features page as a mix of everything. I however had the idea that we could create a pseudo disambiguation page so the Unimplemented features pages on other wikis could link to that page. The pages here (Mentioned features etc.) will link then to the exact equivalent of that page, if there is any. What do you think of that idea?
Also, it would be really good if the interwiki bot could ignore links which are marked, p.g. [[de:Some random interwiki link]] will not be modified or changed by the bot and it won't be used to link other pages to this page. So you have not to register every single prohibited page in a big table, which would be really useful for pages like Rana. Would that be possible? | violine1101^(Talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I like these two ideas. The disambiguation page is a great way to make this easy to understand for users. And everything is possible with my bot ! :) • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything against a disambiguation page to handle the interwikis. As for the "botignore" on a link, that could work, but I still think the page list should be kept, especially for this set of pages. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can move the page to the mainspace then - That makes the whole thing a lot easier. I also agree that the list should be kept for obvious cases (Such as "PC Gamer Demo" and "Demo", which recently caused some problems) but on pages which are exclusive to a wiki "botigore" might be useful. | violine1101^(Talk) 19:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the list a bit so the central point is the page Unimplemented features because many of those pages are a mix of everything. Before I change all the interwiki links, what do you think? Was the former version better? (Also, I'm planning to reorganize that section in the German wiki because it's messed up. I'll keep Nicht implemented Features as Unimplemented features until I've recreated the system which is used here in the English wiki) | violine1101^(Talk) 20:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked over the pages above (by using google translate to translate the content), and the changes you made were correct, making the list more accurate. I also went ahead and checked all the pages with a ? to make sure they were correct, and they contain mostly the same content as the other pages in the category, so I changed them to a check.

Other than that, moved the Chinese article "zh:未加入的特性" to "Unused features", as it seems to have been translated from there, and I added their page "zh:未实现的特性" to the list of "Mentioned features"

I would say this list is read to be implemented as interwikis. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 21:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - All interwiki links on Unimplemented features, Unused features, Mentioned features and Removed features now have globally been updated. (I needed five tries on Polish wiki though, as someone put an url shortened link there and the abusing filter thaught I had added it.) Also, I'll search for all pages on non-English wikis which are exclusive there and are about unimplemented features now. I guess I won't link them to Unimplemented features, I'll link them just to their exact equivalents. That way, it can't produce trouble any more. | violine1101^(Talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - The pages Pigman, Red dragon, Rana, Black Steve, Steve and Beast boy have been interwikied correctly. I think I missed a few wikis, the bot could now find those (exept for the Dutch, Hungarian, Japanese and the Polish wiki I guess). I'll do Human and Camera tomorrow, it's late in UTC+2 (fortunately, there is a public holiday tomorrow) but it's almost done now. | violine1101^(Talk) 23:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

× Dropped support for Italian wiki due to admin complaint × | violine1101^(Talk) 09:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Done - The pages Human and Camera are (still) available in all languages. I also cleaned the Horse Saddle links. I think it's done now. | violine1101^(Talk) 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this ! :) • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 12:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to hu:Steve here ? • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 14:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pending deletion. I don't think that it's reasonable to interwiki that article 1. because it's pending deletion, and it will propably deleted sometime and 2. it hasn't been edited since August 2013. If you want it to be interwikied, go ahead and interwiki it or wait for the bot to update the links. | violine1101^(Talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. • ObelusPA2 ^d · FR Admin · 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Polar Bears

In the tweet confirming polar bears, Jeb mentions that 1.10 snapshots will start in three weeks. I am a little unsure if that is enough of a source to say polar bears will be in 1.10, as while highly unlikely due to tweet character limits, it is possible Jeb just happened to mention them together. --–KnightMiner ^t/_c 18:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Lua scripting

On the topic of lua scripting one might note that some of this functionality has been added with Advancements, Functions and /gamerule gameLoopFunction, even loops are possible (using recursion). - 93.104.177.97 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New uses for Moss Stone?

In this article in Minecraft.net, it says: "With that in mind, you should probably hoard all the moss stone you can find in Minecraft - it might be useful some day...". Should it be put to the list that Moss Stone might get new uses in future? 46.132.191.233 12:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think it should be added for 2 reasons: the first reason is that it never specified any specific use, and the second is that the wording was extremely casual and could have actually been meant as a joke.--

Madminecrafter12^{T • C} 12:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering anyway! 85.76.83.227 12:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Just saying, it being "useful" to hoard the blocks could theoretically also mean they're going to delete the block ID and replace it with something else in the future, such that it would be a loss of the resource otherwise. Not likely, but that's as much as this wording could mean. I'd recommend to take it with a grain of salt, as it isn't even a promise they're going to do something with it. – Jack McKalling [

] 11:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Whales

I found a Reddit comment by Jeb about whales being added to the game (might have been a just a joke)

"• Krillager - Swims around and gets eaten by whales" – u/jeb_ on Reddit, March 27, 2017

-193.211.7.98 13:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The context makes it pretty clear it is a joke, but it fits in joke features quite well. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 21:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Smoke Blocks

It says that smoke was planned to be added; it has with campfires. Please update that.73.208.227.101 16:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Nether boats"

Didn't a developer mention nether boats (presumably made out of the new wood) in a tweet?73.208.227.101 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Blaze3D

Is Blaze3D not the current rendering engine as of version 1.15? It seems to be actively having bugs reported on it. 108.78.62.168 00:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It is. Minecraft 1.15 uses Blaze3D as it's graphic engine. Since 1.15 is already out, the section regarding Blaze3D should be removed. Michaelts (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Netherite workbench

Somewhere on the feedback site yesterday, there was an article written in French that said something about a netherite workbench. They made it "announced" and today they removed it from the feedback site. Should we say anything about it on the page?--ManosSef (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)