Talk:1.9

 This page is only for discussing the 1.9 page. Below are some common links to help you before you post.

Counter-edit warring

There has been some counter-edit warring (whatever it's called) on the page about the release date box. If you could look onto that, that would be great. MarioProtIV (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion, if it helps, is that there is no reason to declare the date is not set when an unknown release date is already good. We never set a parameter just to remove the "?", especially if we do not know what is correct. Mojang may have even set the release date, and just not told anyone. Also, by setting it to "Date not set", it causes much more editing with speculation trying to guess the year. --KnightMiner (t|c) 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And setting it to "date not set" is an oxymoron. MajrTalk
Contribs
⎜ 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Protect the page until the first 1.9 snapshot gets released

I got tired of unsourced information being added to the page, so I decided to put an editor warning visible only when editing the page, however, people still didn't stop adding unsourced information. Please protect this page until the first 1.9 snapshot gets released. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I do not think protection is necessary, as no recent false information has been added, and in the past it was mainly the doing of a single user. If it becomes excessive, I would agree to semi-protection. KnightMiner (t·c) 20:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wither

Currently, the upcoming changes list the wither has "Planned Additions". That seems very useless, as it states nothing more than the wither is being changed, maybe even simply to include bug fixes. Can we require that the feature actually has some description? KnightMiner (t·c) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what it says, it says "A new bar for when there are two withers". Have you tried purging the cache, perhaps? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Compare the time of my post with the time of your edit.
My main point is the additions of "Secret feature", "Changes involving x" and other similar things that have been being added. We have no rule in place against undescriptive "Upcoming features", causing people to think it is fine. KnightMiner (t·c) 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The tweet doesn't even say it's for 1.9— TheWombatGuru t | c NL Admin 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The Wither boss bar is a darker purple. Does that help you? Fyreboy5 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Consistency

How to add consistency to the one-bullet-point additions? Is it better as separate bullet points (like I just made it) or empty headings? FM22 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it consistent with the style of 1.8 and alike. Since there are not alot of features yet, the category headers are not needed, but individual items should have their title bold, and information as bullet points (for example, the captions would state captions as the title, and the example as a bullet point, while the new commands would go under the header of "commands" or something similar) KnightMiner t/c 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

That's referring to Pocket Edition. Skylinerw (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that refers to the Pocket Edition, as the context implies "fixing boat" while the PE boats are not in development version yet. Even so, usually we do not state upcoming fixes without bug tracker links. KnightMiner t/c 02:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
But Tomasso also promised boats that can hold multiple entities and the different colored wood types, those are new features, not bug-fixes. --Kkkllleee (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reference in that video we can guarantee is the PC edition is the first one about fixing boats, the rest are all promised features for the Pocket Edition, and the tweets are from a the Pocket Edition dev, but never stated for PC. KnightMiner t/c 03:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There are more news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCwo5Bnjfk here the tweets from the developers imply that not only do new kinds of boats would be added, but that version exclusive features in general are gonna have more notoriety across platforms. --Kkkllleee (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything about new kinds of boats, just changes to how existing ones behave. I'm not sure what you mean by "notoriety", but Jeb's tweet here says their goal is to get rid of version exclusive features, making the game the same on all platforms. -- Orthotopetalk 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
At 1:35, he is saying he made a boat out of birch but a bug made it so that it transformed into oak when broken, this implies that now it is considered proper for a birch boat to drop birch planks, but that makes no sense, unless he is saying that new boat kinds are going to be added, since he is against version exclusive features, then it is pretty much confirmed. --Kkkllleee (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much confirmed is not confirmed, it is still speculation. Stating he wants to get rid of version exclusive features does not mean all Pocket edition exclusive features are coming in 1.9, nor that there are any plans to add any of those features yet. It just means exclusive features are not desired.
As for the tweet you referenced (this one, right? it would be nice for you to provide that link, rather than me needing to find it), I would not conciser that as enough proof as of yet, since jeb_ is also working on the pocket edition at this time (where colored boats are confirmed). Even if referring to the PC edition, that tweet could easily refer to current behavior), as it only mentions the recipe (built from birch) and the outcome (oak planks drop).
So in summary, while I would not doubt colored boats are planned for 1.9, there is no source yet as to them being added in that update. You could try tweeting one of the developers to ask if it is true if you want though. KnightMiner t/c 20:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing it up. Can you teach me how to search for tweets? --Kkkllleee (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘

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

Otherwise, the Minecraft Subreddit tends to contain most tweets relating to new features.

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

Changed "hearing impaired" to "hard of hearing"

"Hearing impaired" is a rather rude term and "hard of hearing" would be preferred. 98.203.219.61 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Posting to the talk page was not really necessary; a properly-written edit summary is sufficient. — NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess he was preparing for a flame war. --Kkkllleee (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war

I don't want to start an edit war BDJP007301 but the reason I made the change was because the top level (one indent) point was about making the boss fight more similar to the console edition, and this is one of the features that is in the console edition and is confirmed to be added. It is relevant to the boss fight specifically as it stops you from shooting the ender crystals and you have to climb some of the pillars instead. FM22 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree — NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - Doesn't relate to the Ender Dragon in general, which you put it under. BDJP (t|c) 15:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Point taken; will correct title –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talkcontribs) at 15:13, 03 April 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Agree since the title had been changed to specify 'boss fight'. Skylinerw (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute again

I changed one of the titles to match the bug tracker's, then LauraFi reverted it and BDJP007301 reverted LauraFi's revert. That was finally reverted by Sealbudsman. Should we use common grammar or use the bug tracker titles? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

MCT:Community portal#Bug_descriptions_controversy. Why should we use the junk tracker titles? See also: [1]LauraFi - talk 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no official policy or guideline regarding bug tracker titles still, but we should gain consensus to avoid further disputes and edit wars about this in the future. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is something as silly as this a dispute? There is no reason we should keep terribly written titles from the tracker, as the titles are hardly an "official" resource, since they are written by users just like here the wiki, only lacking a style guide. There is also no reason to go to every page and correct the titles, as the titles don't hurt anyone even if illegible, but there is even less reason to revert the title to the original title after someone corrects errors. Really, how is the wiki benefited by having no spaces in "end portal frame"? Is this really a battle worth fighting? In summary, if the new title still describes the bug (especially if better), don't revert it to the old one. That is just disruptive. KnightMiner t/c 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with KnightMiner so here is my proposed policy:
Bug tracker issue titles should retain their original text, unless such text is unclear, then the recommended approach is to edit it enough so as to keep it essentially the same but more informative.

--Kkkllleee (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You might want to also share your proposal at the larger discussion at Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Community_portal#Bug_descriptions_controversy. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) t/c 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Grass path, why is it still here?

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

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

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

To get a grass path block, you need to simply use a shovel on a piece of grass, meaning the grass block. Fyreboy5 (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

when i click on the link which lists the issues fixed in 1.9 (far future version), i will be redirected to the mojang bugtracker site, but the page says

[Error in the JQL Query: The character '.' is a reserved JQL character. You must enclose it in a string or use the escape '\u002e' instead. (line 1, character 49)]


instead of showing the list of fixed bugs. 77.171.37.50 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit: it seems like it was a problem with my NoScript, but it still gives the error message:
The value 'Minecraft Far Future Version - 1.9+' does not exist for the field 'fixVersion'.

instead of just giving the list.
77.171.37.50 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Spectral Arrow

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

Done KnightMiner t/c 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In the video showing the new inventory it is shown that the spectral arrow has a gold like appearance please put the new information in a subbullet (probably not the right term) there are also a few grammatical errors.Gggggminecraft (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Done again. I tweaked the grammar a bit as well, but if you have any more specific ideas of what needs to be fixed, feel free to suggest that here or add it yourself once you become autocomfirmed KnightMiner t/c 20:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is how it probably should look
Atleast four new arrow types
One such arrow is the spectral arrow
Will be used as a utility rather than for combat
In the video showing the new inventory layout it is shown the spectral arrow has a gold
colored tip


The current info is kind of vague Gggggminecraft (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason it is vague is because we can only state what is stated, to avoid speculation. Specifically, the spectral arrow was never stated to not be used for combat, but rather not for damage (it could cause status effects with less damage or change mob behavior, and even utilities can be used for combat). We also do not need to state where the information came from other then in the references, just the information stated. KnightMiner t/c 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is true but as much information as possible must be given maybe you should merge your idea with mine change not used for combat to not very good at hurting just give more information. Gggggminecraft (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Snapshot 'Release Date': Would Adding be Speculation?

I'm unsure as to whether [2] counts as a confirmed (first snapshot) release date. Again, Searge is being overly specific like in the structure generation tweets which are apparently classed as reliable sources on this page, and Minecon seems quite a logical time to release the combat changes... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talkcontribs) at 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

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

Snapshot Gallery Idea

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

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

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

There are no 1.9 snapshots, and in any case, a link is better, not a gallery. KnightMiner t/c 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I Think he means screenshot gallery. I make the same mistake all the time. PancakeMan77 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Offhand slot not shield slot

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

Grass Path Exclusive to PE

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

The Grass Path is worded such to state the current status of the block - it is currently only available for Pocket Edition, and until there is a 1.9 snapshot with the Grass Path block, the paragraph should remain such. See MCW:FUTURE for more info. 09:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't... that be a bug?

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

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

Viewing Livestream Source

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

You can watch the full stream on Twitch as well - http://www.twitch.tv/mojang/v/6949826?t=1h02m44s. 14:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I don't know too much about livestream stuff as I said before. FM22 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how easy it is to do, but it might be good if someone could save a copy of significant streams such as this one. Twitch has an option to save streams for people to watch later, but deletes the video after either 14 or 60 days, depending on the streamer's account status. I'm not finding a clear answer on if Youtube lets you do the same thing or not. Either way, there's no guarantee that any video will be available after the stream ends. -- Orthotopetalk 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
After the 2013 minecon Mojang uploaded every single panel video to youtube. This gives me hope that this year's panels will be archived to youtube. FM22 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Marc says they will be YouTube videos, he is just not sure exactly how long until they will be uploaded. (source) KnightMiner t/c 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Shulker disguises as Blocks

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

That part is noted on mentioned features, as it was specifically stated that he could not do it at this time, but would like to in the future.
Also, please use the "add section" button to make a new topic. Do not just randomly place a new section in the middle of the page. KnightMiner t/c 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I am sorry. But what i was wondering, is if it is not being put into 1.9, why does it say under Shulker that they camouflage? That is saying that it will be in 1.9, but it will not. PancakeMan77 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't, it says it disguises as a block, or its shell closes making it look like a block. KnightMiner t/c 03:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

snapshot

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

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

The new Enderdragon Boss fight

I've heard that you could fight the dragon once again without resetting the end, but will the ender crystals stay? Just waiting for my survival to get harder. Xtremewolves (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If I recall, yes, they can be used in summoning a second dragon once the first is defeated. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Arrow

Wouldn't the "Arrows no longer collide with an invisible wall" portion be a bug fix? PancakeMan77 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be, yes. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

End Ships?

I came across an "end ship" that had a colored beacon (with no effect assinged), obsidian on the bottom, a brewing stand (with two Health II potions) and two chests (with diamond tools).

File:End ship.png
An end ship.

I'm no writer, so I'll just leave this info here. --FargoGoosey (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Known new blocks for 1.9

To the best of my knowledge, here is what we know about the new blocks added in 1.9:
198:00 End Rod (Upright)
198:04 End Rod (East-West)
198:08 End Rod (North-South)
199:00 Chorus Plant
200:00 Chorus Flower
201:00 Purpur Block
202:00 Purpur Pillar
206:00 End Stone Bricks
208:00 Grass Path

We also know about the Purpur stairs and slabs:
???:00 Purpur Stairs (Ascending East, normal)
???:01 Purpur Stairs (Ascending West, normal)
???:02 Purpur Stairs (Ascending North, normal)
???:03 Purpur Stairs (Ascending South, normal)
???:04 Purpur Stairs (Ascending East, upside-down)
???:05 Purpur Stairs (Ascending West, upside-down)
???:06 Purpur Stairs (Ascending North, upside-down)
???:07 Purpur Stairs (Ascending South, upside-down)
???:?? Purpur Double Slab
???:?? Purpur Double Slab (seamless) <--- speculative
???:?? Purpur Slab (lower half)
???:?? Purpur Slab (upper half)

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

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

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

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

"1.9 is the first non-development version of the Combat Update"

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

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

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

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

This discussion, while not on the exact same topic as the current one, is still relevant, and much of the reasoning in my comment there can translate, at least indirectly, to here. 06:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I know you are addressing MarioProtIV's point, though I have a different concern to raise.
I agree with everything you say about the version and the update being two separate animals – yet as precise as it is, I still feel the exact phrase "first non-development version" to be clumsy. And I think it's at least partially because of this: I am not convinced the snapshots are, strictly speaking, a part of the Update, so much as they represent just the development of the Update. It seems this way to me because of the way Mojang talks about the release versus the snapshots; they don't ever announce the arrival of the Update on the blog or the tumblr until after all the snapshots and pre-releases have been exhausted, and the full version is ready. So the word "non-development" here feels redundant. Tell me if I'm far off, on this.
Anyway, if you omit that word, that leaves the phrase "1.x, the first version of the X Update, ...".
Or switch it up a little to say "1.x, the version ushering in / kicking off / introducing / launching / [other synonym] the X Update, ...".
Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I see your point here, but in this case I think reader comprehension is more important: even if the development snapshots and prereleases aren't considered part of the current named update by Mojang, it's likely that most people will consider them to be simply because that's what makes sense. Of course, I could be mistaken about this, since I don't follow the fandom terribly closely. Other than that, I do agree that I'm not terribly fond of "non-development", but it's the best thing I've come up with that still avoids the ambiguity I pointed out here. But this is a fairly minor point overall, and I wouldn't be terribly broken up regardless of what's decided for it. 15:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"... it's likely that most people will consider them to be simply because that's what makes sense."
I think we might just have different ideas about what makes sense in this case. Like, right now, to me, we're still in 1.8 territory, with sneak peeks at what's upcoming. It could be just me. But anyway ... if it comes down to just using a simpler phrase like "first release", I could get along with that. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 17:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Sealbudsman
. -BDJP (t|c) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with Sealbudsman that "non-development" reads oddly, I do still feel development versions are part of the overall update, so maybe rewording that to "the first release of X update" (which would be consistent with both the term used in the launcher, and the term "pre-release" being before the release) KnightMiner t/c 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, "release" instead of "version"... that could work, yeah. 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As a general note here, if this proposal is successful, the articles for named updates will also have to be updated, since currently they all equate the named update and the version number update as well. 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Changed my mind. Unfortunately, I've now decided to
Oppose. I agree with Mario on this one. It does seem like it was split. -BDJP (t|c) 13:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - It's already stated in the infobox that the official name of 1.9 is The Combat Update. That piece of prose saying "1.9, the first release of The Combat Update..." makes it look confusing. Also, I thought it was already obvious that wording it like that makes it look like separate things. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Need any help with 1.9 wiki pics?

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

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

Splash

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

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

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

Armor Stands

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

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

Beacons on End Ships will not stay

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

The wiki only supports snapshoted/released versions except in sections marked as planned. The thing you mentioned is already noted in Planned changes, and will not be moved to the main section until it actually happened in a snapshot. KnightMiner t/c 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I see. I assumed that if something was noted under 1.9, it meant that it was planned for 1.9. I assumed this because 1.9 isn't out yet so therefore everything is technically a "planned feature" (Snapshots aren't official). I don't expect change, but a suggestion I have is this - The 1.9 page consists of things that are planned for 1.9. If they are added in a snapshot then they are added to the 1.9 page and the snapshot page, because they are then planned for 1.9. But if something is no longer planned, then you would remove this from the 1.9 page because the 1.9 page is only for things that are planned for 1.9 (Which was stated in the first sentence). End ship beacons aren't for example. You would keep the end ship beacon addition on the snapshot page though because it was in the snapshot. This way, you can remove "planned features" from the 1.9 page because all 1.9 additions are "planned features" technically. I understand that snapshot additions can also be planned additions for 1.9 but, like end ship beacons for an example, all snapshot additions aren't 1.9 planned features. I'm basically saying this possible way of having the 1.9 page because it makes more sense to me and it makes it easier for other people to understand. TY 73.41.130.151 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
We have in the past had problems with doing things that way. Features would get stated as planned for the update (and organized among the other text), then a developer would forget or put it off for a later update, but the page would never get updated as it gets lost among the text. This would leave users unsure of what actually happened in the update, and lots of "why does this feature not work" comments.
Instead, the most orderly way to have it is the page describe all features that are currently in 1.9 (as in if the latest snapshot was released as the full update), and the "Planned" sections describe what might change or be added before the full release. KnightMiner t/c 01:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a kind of asterisk or note next to 1.9 things which is a link. They link to the planned changes part of the page where it says that the specific thing is planned to be changed. It lets people know that an addition to 1.9 might not stay. 73.41.130.151 02:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

/clone

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

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

Broken bullets

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

Ok, I fixed the spaces after the semicolons so it shows up fine in the preview but it still displays wrong! FM22 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've undone your removal of the spaces because their presence or absence has no impact on the rendered page whatsoever; the effect you saw on preview likely would have happened if you simply clicked to edit the page and then previewed without making any changes (though I'd appreciate if you could actually try that and report back).
Can you get a screenshot of the problem and provide some details of your device (type of phone, OS and browser version)? 23:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably what happened. I have no idea how to send the screenshot but I have a better description of the problem:
The page looks fine in preview mode, but in normal mode (reading the page) all level 1 bullets (*) are not on a new line. All other bullets work and this does not depend on <ref> tags.
I have a Moto G running Lollipop 5.0.2 and am getting the problem on Chrome (mobile version) 43.0.2357.93 (latest version)
You can upload the screenshot here or on your image sharing service of choice (I personally prefer imgur, if you're looking for a recommendation =) ). 08:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
http://imgur.com/a/VfXix should work FM22 (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you try changing chrome://flags/#enable-gpu-rasterization to disabled and seeing what happens? 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ignore me, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for pointing out the actual cause here, Majr! =) 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This is caused by some mobile view styling for profiles being applied to the 3rd section of every page rather than just the profile page, so yes, a gamepedia bug. MajrTalk
Contribs
11:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dual Wielding

So I was wondering if I should create a page about dual wielding, or what we should do with it. I think it should go somewhere in a page other than the 1.9 and 1.9 snapshot pages. PancakeMan77 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say the 'f' key mentioned in Controls, the features mentioned in Inventory and the practical uses in Tutorials/Dual Wielding FM22 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also HUD if such a page exists FM22 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you make the tutorial page? I will write it up and everything, I just need the page to be there, even if it's blank PancakeMan77 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to create the page yourself. -- Orthotopetalk 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to create a tutorial page PancakeMan77 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I have already added the relevant information to inventory, controls, and heads-up display, but I do agree a tutorial would be a good idea for specific uses. KnightMiner t/c 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Just go to: http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Tutorials/Dual_Weilding and edit it into existence. It would probably be good to add {{Tutorials}} to the bottom, and create the relevant redirect pages. Cultist O (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! In a little bit anyone will be able to edit. This is going to need some help from everyone PancakeMan77 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I made it. It will still need major editing/additions from everyone PancakeMan77 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I forget how we did this in history sections

Are history sections supposed to pass {{1.9}}, or was {{history}} supposed to take care of 1.9 internally? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 21:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Most any template that uses an internal version links (usaually via {{version link}}) automatically adds {{release version}} internally. {{1.9}} is only really required for direct text references to the update. So yes, {{history}} takes care of {{1.9}} internally. KnightMiner t/c 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks, I didn't remember. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 23:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

9 new command blocks??

You can read here that 1.9 will have 9 new command blocks. That's because Searge made 9 new textures, he said.

But this is not true. 1.9 contains 3 new command blocks, because he created 3 textures for each command block, remember? :P I don't know how to change it, so I'm just gonna say it here.

~Anoniem --212.187.109.211 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

HELP!

When I added fixes from 1.9 snapshots then I accedenty removed fixes. What should I do? :'c WillMacViking (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's been reverted now. FM22 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Snapshots

I have something i discovered in 15w34d. I am not sure which "34" snapshot it is in. I have no way of testing it, as the others were removed. What should I do? PancakeMan77 (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We have links to the download for the versions which are no longer included in the launcher on all the 34 snapshot pages. They were just removed from the launcher. KnightMiner t/c 23:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
How do I install them? I'm on a Mac. PancakeMan77 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Create a new folder in .minecraft/versions under the version number (eg, 15w34b), then paste the .jar and .json files in that folder. It will then appear in the launcher if you enable development versions. KnightMiner t/c 01:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Swords doing the same damage as a fist? (Bug)

So, I'm playing with the snapshots, and I notice it takes longer to kill a mob with a sword. I hadn't been keeping up with the additions of the snapshots, so I assumed they made the mobs stronger. Then today I was looking at the things added in snapshots, when my friend noticed something. He said that the sword does half a heart, the same damage as a fist. I didn't believe him, so I punched a zombie to death. It took 22 hits - just like it normally does. So, I realized that the sword does the same damage as half a heart. Is this a bug? Has anyone else noticed this? 07:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.218.5.106 (talk). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Please read 1.9#Gameplay 2 under the subheader combat. Weapons now have a delay before you can used them a second time. KnightMiner t/c 17:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This delay is to deal the same damage per hit. Spamming is no longer useful for battle. Unless, of course, you have a, say, 20,000 sharpness sword. Such a sword, by the way, will one shot the Wither, even while spamming. I hope this helps. Fyreboy5 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing redundant information

I'm unsure as to what to remove in planned changes. I recently removed the "new potions" information as new potions have been added but it keeps getting reverted. BDJP, I thought you didn't like speculation; new potions are specualtion as new ones have been added since the source mentioned them. FM22 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't think that is speculation at all. That the post was made before lingering potions were added is pointless. The post did not mention anything regarding lingering potions, it clearly said "new potions or enchantments" (not "new potion variant"), and I'm trying to get word from Dinnerbone regarding this matter. -BDJP (t|c) 12:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough FM22 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts on 'new block type' part? http://m.imgur.com/Rg7HYOw looks like the planned block type is end stone brick and purpur... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talkcontribs) at 7:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
It could easily be end stone bricks, as the picture is showing how good yellow sandstone/brich looks with green/purple prismarine. As such, it might be a little too vague to be worth keeping, even if they mean a different block (plus from the sound of the tweet, its a solely decorational block, meaning if there is little reason not to add it to the first snapshot) KnightMiner t/c 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Done removed info. I will search for more redundancy in a section created a few month ago and untouched since. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talkcontribs) at 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Change and addition dichotomy

I have doubts on the nature of the new skeleton trap, because for all intents and purposes is a new entity an does not represent a change on previous horse. Also the new commands blocks are definitely new blocks so they should go on additions, but that would mean separating the changes of the regular command blocks. I'm also curious if the description on the health tag is accurate. --Kkkllleee (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A new entity would imply a new ID, when there is none. It's still the same old horse but with additional functionality. But keep in mind that's from a technical point of view; I agree that it blurs the line between "change" and "addition", being a new gameplay mechanic but not being a new entity.
The "Health" Short tag was replaced by the "Health" Float tag, with "HealF" Float tag removed completely (equivalent to "HealF" being renamed to "Health", which changes the tag-type of the original "Health" tag). The description on the page is a bit awkward to read, but that's the general idea of it. Skylinerw (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not "for all intents and purposes" a new entity: to create one you can just use /entitydata on any existing horse, and it behaves the same as any horse except for one AI routine. It's similar to (but much more dramatic than) some zombies or skeletons having the ability to pick up items, or a zombie having the ability to break doors, or a chicken being flagged to not lay eggs and to despawn. Even charged creepers and baby zombies are considered the same kind of entity. It is a new behavior for the existing entity.
As for the Health/HealF, the situation in code as of 15w38b is that if the entity's DataVersion is less than or equal to 109 then the value from HealF (or from Health cast to float if HealF isn't set) is set as the new float-valued Health and any existing HealF is deleted. The rest of the code then expects Health to be a float. The existing description is strange, please fix. Anomie x (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Guys, what about command blocks? :( --Kkkllleee (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
As to not seperate them, I would keep them in the changes. It was a change to command block. PancakeMan77 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

New entities

Is it true that the only new entity added is the effectCloud? What about the new projectile of the ender dragon? --Kkkllleee (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All new entities to 1.9 are: AreaEffectCloud, DragonFireball, Shulker, ShulkerBullet, TippedArrow, and SpectralArrow. Skylinerw (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks I'll be sure to add the relevant ones. --Kkkllleee (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dinnerbone stated potentional release date for Minecraft 1.9

At October 15th, Dinnerbone (Nathan Adams) posted the following tweet on Twitter:

We are aiming to get Minecraft 1.9 feature complete at end of this month. Feature complete doesn't mean bug free & ready to release, though!

Should this be added to this page? End of October, it is a potential release date...

–Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.84.23.67 (talk) at 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Per the end of the quote ("Feature complete doesn't mean bug free & ready to release, though!"), I would say it is not precise enough, rather just a general plan. It would be worth noting in the article header though that they plan of feature completeness by the end of October. KnightMiner t/c 20:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Subtitles page?

Should there be a subtitles page? I think it should go somewhere at least. Maybe it could list all the subtitles? I don't know, I just think it should go somewhere. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by PancakeMan77 (talkcontribs) at Oct 25, 2015, 16:25 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Look no further than Subtitles, for all your subtitle needs. – Sealbudsman 21:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

AreaEffectCloud

Should there be a dedicated page to the AreaEffectCloud entity? I believe most other entities have their own page, and all the relevant NBT data could be listed there. 04:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe the link that already exists on Lingering Potion is enough? 04:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the entire effect is directly related to the potion (as opposed to having an independent use), I would just expand the coverage cover it on Lingering Potion, like we do with the snowball or arrow entities. KnightMiner t/c 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

1.10 or 2.0

The general convention for versioning software is to treat each number in the version seperately, with the major and minor version numbers being independent. This is demonstrated very well by the MC:PE alpha, which is currently version 0.13 (not 1.3). WillMackViking, the Minecraft Alpha went from 1.2 Alpha to 1.0 Beta and the minecraft Beta went from 1.8 Beta to 1.0 release (although there were some pre-releases for "Beta 1.9" which was then released as 1.0.0). There is absolutely no precedent anywhere in either convention or Minecraft's version history to go from 1.9 to 2.0, unless the devs want to completely start Minecraft from scratch. Additionally, 1.10 is listed as a version on the bug tracker and there have been tweets about this issue. FM22 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

WillMacViking, You are edit warring and participating in bad faith. People have explained to you how versioning works, there isn't now any excuse why you should be acting as hostile as this. There isn't a burden on people to provide 'evidence' why you should stop, as if this kind of hostage-taking is your right. You should stop because you should have come and discussed it here, under the rules of how edit wars are supposed to be averted.
Will https://twitter.com/Dinnerbone/status/625957736526839808 and https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-90861?focusedCommentId=259787 help put this ridiculous topic to bed? – Sealbudsman 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you for giving a link and a good explanation so I will stop editing. I just thought that it would be dumb to call it 1.10 because its nearly like 1.1 so it would be hard to search on youtube etc. Sorry and thank you again –Preceding unsigned comment was added by WillMacViking (talkcontribs) at 19:08, 09 November 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

That's fine, but we don't make the names, we just call them as they are, dumb or not. Thanks. – Sealbudsman 19:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Might I say that this is irrelevant to 1.9. This section should be on the talk page of 1.10. Fyreboy5 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It might seem so if you ignore the context of the discussion, which is the nextparent link field in the infobox. KnightMiner t/c 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Although mentioned by Dinnerbone and written on this page, I haven't found any evidence that pressing left and right in alternation makes you paddle any faster in a boat. I have tried "rowing" at various speeds and none of them work any better than just holding the "a" and "d" keys--in fact the boat is slower a lot of the time. Additionally I have seen on Reddit that other people caould not confirm this feature existed either. Can anyone get this "paddling" feature working? FM22 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Firework Rocket Update

When I was playing with the fireworks, I noticed they changed it. Let me tell you how.

When crafting a rocket with no firework star, the number of gunpowder to the rocket will not change its height - probably a bug.
When I place a firework rocket, it spawns a rocket exactly where I place it, such as if I use it on the edge of two blocks, it will spawn exactly there. Because of this, it can go through blocks if placed on the underside.

Even though this change is small, it is a change. Fyreboy5 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you try to figure out which snapshot this was added in? PancakeMan77 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Release date?

Someone wrote the release date "February 25,2015" instead of "February 25,2016".Please fix it. 20:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)~~ ThunderEagle14 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it, but you certainly can too! Thanks for noticing. – Sealbudsman 20:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Release date DOW is incorrect

It should read "Monday, February 29". Also, "February" is spelled incorrectly in the sidebar. Scudobuio (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Issue with pre-releases in navigation

The pre-releases are appearing under snapshots, builds and twice in the pre-release section on the navigation bar on the right hand side of the page. Anyone know what is causing the issue? 10:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, my fault, I forgot to remove some debug stuff I was using when fixing an error with {{development version list}}. KnightMiner t/c 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

1.9 out today!

Get ready to make note of it being official, it'll be noted that 1.9 MAY BE OUT. 96.237.27.238 12:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What? If 1.9 comes out today, we will state it as released, otherwise we will state it was not released when planned. We already know about the planned release date here (as stated on the article), so additional warning is unneeded. KnightMiner t/c 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Protect The Page?

Well guys, I don't think that you have to protect this page, I mean try to prevent vandalism but not COMPLETELY protect it! That's not fair to the people who don't vandalize pages. Who would edit it? (and don't you DARE say "An admin!" Or "A mod!" becasue you know what I mean and that's called being a smart alec. Thank you!) FizzyCocoaPerson t/c 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected: any registered user in the 'autoconfirmed' group can edit the page. This deters casual vandals while allowing our valued contributors to keep pages up to date. Also, looking at your edits, I would disagree with your implication that you're one of the "people who don't vandalize pages". -- Orthotopetalk 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Well Orthrope, I Didn't know that. I'm sorry about that pointless edit I just made. Also, you're correct I did use to vandalize pages BUT I don't do it anymore, as back then, I was immature and kind of a troll, however I don't do that anymore and I really have changed since then. FizzyCocoaPerson t/c 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What to do with Planned Additions/Changes

What should be done about the planned additions and changes? They are no longer planned for 1.9, as it is already out. Should they just be deleted entirely?PancakeMan77 (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think they'd go in mentioned features. – Sealbudsman 22:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is that all the trivia we could get?

Trivia

• It took a long time.
• No, like a really long time.
• Like, so long.
• Did we mention it took a while to make?!

Come on, we can do better than that. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by DigiDuncan (talkcontribs) at 13:34, March 3, 2016‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

If you have something else to put there, there's no-one stopping you. – Sealbudsman 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Trivia sections are a new thing on version articles, and really besides facts on development length there is nothing else that does not already fit elsewhere on the article. KnightMiner t/c 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Trivia sections aren't something that should be encouraged anyways. If something's worth noting in an article, there's almost certainly a better place for it to go than a trivia section, and if it's not worth noting, sticking it in a trivia section doesn't suddenly make it noteworthy. 11:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Controls Changes

I noticed that there seemed to be significant changes to the controls in terms of inventory management and what left-clicking and right-clicking do in terms of no longer splitting stacks or easily dragging things around, etc. Could someone please reference these changes and how to do these things now that they are changed? Thanks. --KRaZyXmAn (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any changes along those lines in 1.9. Anomie x (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

1.9 Feature - missing from list

I am not sure what it is called but it has the effect of automatically hopping up onto one block high increases in the terrain when moving across land blocks. I can not find this new 1.9 upgrade feature listed or being discussed any where. I for one have found that this new feature is a major pain when digging landscape or moving around dangerous areas. I would like to be able to TURN IT OFF but I do not think that is possible. Where would I go to request such an option be added to the game? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 73.89.181.185 (talk) at 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Because it's not a 1.9 feature, it's a 1.10 feature. The Auto-jump option is available under "Controls". Skylinerw (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If you wanted to suggest any other features to the game, I would try https://www.reddit.com/r/minecraftsuggestions. – Sealbudsman 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)