Talk:Version history

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sign your posts with ~~~~ and always add new posts at the very bottom after previous sections.

Server download[edit source]

Should the download link to the minecraft_server.jar be removed on all non-current versions? Almost all of the links just take you to the current download, in this case, 1.8.5 JNRM3 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would leave it as a default. We might as well send the user to the latest server over no server. KnightMiner t/c 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge PC version history pages[edit source]

The result of the discussion was pages merged. –KnightMiner t/c 03:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


So, as I mentioned a bit back a couple times, I would like to see the various PC version history pages merged into one article, as they no longer have too much content for a single article. I've written up a sample in my workbench which shows the idea better I think.

The page basically contains the small tables for each major version number, including infdev, indev, classic, and pre-classic versions (as links to their articles). Overall, it basical removes the need for {{version history nav}}, as the {{about}} can handle links to planned versions and mentioned features, and the disambig page can easily handle links to other versions.

KnightMiner t/c 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 Agree -BDJP (t|c) 01:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, although I noticed that the versions earlier than Alpha are just linked from their respective version pages. Will these stay too? GoandgooTalk
Contribs
11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. It helps with the consistency between parts of the development cycle, and is a good way to link the versions on the subpages, especially since both the Indev/Infdev lack of version numbers and the overall lack of content per update, it makes little to split the pre-alpha stuff into separate pages. KnightMiner t/c 02:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Agree, I also suggest leaving the phase names (Alpha, Beta, etc.) in the template, but instead having them redirect to their page (NOT version history links). --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That would make sense, but only if we were changing it from a sidebar (basically saying "these other pages help cover this topic") to a nabvox (basically saying "you might be interested in these pages"), which now that I think of it is not such a bad idea. It would also help reduce the excess of pages dumped into the {{minecraft}} navbox. KnightMiner t/c 02:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Conditional support, as long as nobody would write articles for Infdev and earlier versions. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Agree – I have a similar opinion as Nick about the early version articles, though to me it doesn't make a difference here. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Update highlights[edit source]

Frequently enough on https://www.reddit.com/r/minecraft, I see people being referred to this page whenever they ask "what did I miss in the last several years".

I can imagine people must be clicking links in this giant set of tables here, to get any idea at all.

I wonder if we could put in a third column, after 'Release Date', that would list out maybe some BlockLinks and ItemLinks of what was added in that version, maybe some short prose. So that a person could, at a glance, see the key highlights of what was changed or added since they last played. With the aim of making this page more helpful as a guide when they are pointed here. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)