Talk: Java Edition 1.10

New Setblock[]

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

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

Taiga Villages[]

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

Two things that, for me, point to PC:

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

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

Your first point, you said "Testing some ideas from MC:PE" Did you mean MC:PC? Because if he was testing something for MC:PE I think saying, "Testing an idea for MC:PE make sense. seanpa

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

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

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

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

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

Snapshots[]

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

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

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

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

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

Structure block[]

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

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

Agreed. – OlidogMC (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Teaser pictures[]

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

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

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

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

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

Nether Wart Block and other mentioned, unconfirmed changes[]

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

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

I think the strengths to this approach are

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

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

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

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

I do agree yeah, this could be more of a style guide level discussion. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

For me, unfortunately, I'd have to Oppose this. Just because a feature is unconfirmed doesn't mean it's just straight-up going to be in 1.10. Also, it may drive more speculation regarding what will be added if such a section is included. -BDJP ^(t|c) 15:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

In response to that, I'd like to clarify that I wouldn't support it myself, if the language wasn't completely clear that it's unconfirmed. I think, out in the wider world, people have the idea that certain features are confirmed, and I sort of would rather the wiki page set them straight, rather than be silent on the issue. Meaning, I think it could clarify the matter for a lot of people, rather than drive speculation. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone, go the link Sealbudsman posted below this reply. Read through his suggestion and say your opinion, and maybe we can get a solution! PancakeIdentity (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Support, mainly to stop the continual add-then-revert for stuff like the nether blocks. I wouldn't include the observer block in this, though, since it was explicitly said to not be counted on for 1.10. Anomie x (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah .. there's that, and the taiga villages, and the bark blocks, all of which are unconfirmed for 1.10, all of which were mentioned during 1.10 development, but each has, you might say, a different level of stated commitment. On the other hand, something to consider: the level of commitment could just be explicitly stated. Like have an entry for Observer block, but then quote a developer who says "don't count on this for 1.10". Just because that clears matters up for a reader who's heard of the Observer, but because it's mentioned during the current timeframe, thinks it's slated for 1.10. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaning toward opposing, since it would duplicate content from Mentioned Features, and contradicts our convention of not listing features that aren't confirmed for a particular version. I've noticed that most people who are adding these features are using the visual editor, so they won't see any HTML comments that are in the page. Maybe a 'see also' section, with link along the lines of "Mentioned Features - for game features that have been announced by developers, but not confirmed for a specific version". -- Orthotope^talk 21:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I do acknowledge I'm proposing a departure from convention .. I would prefer such a thing to be hashed-out, agreed-upon, codified in some way, rather than having exceptions allowed on this and that page; I don't much like exceptions. The 'See also' section you mentioned sounds like very much the same as what I mean, so I'm unclear where lies the disagreement? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean a See Also section that just has a link to the Mentioned Features page; the upcoming features themselves would not be listed on this page. -- Orthotope^talk 01:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So... should the unconfirmed features be mentioned on this page? What is the final verdict? I kind of agree with not talking about them on this page, but having a link to mentioned features. On the mentioned features page, we could say that they were mentioned during 1.10's development cycle, but not expliciltly stated for 1.10. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As Orthotope and PancakeIdentity suggest -- not talking about them on this page, but just linking to mentioned features -- ~~I'd be up for just trying that,~~ what do people think? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it'll work, but feel free to try it. Anomie x (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so either, really. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 18:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed an amendment to Minecraft_Wiki:Style_guide/Versions, on the Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Style_guide/Versions page. I do think it's best to not make exceptions to existing rules, rather to codify a new rule as long as there is a good reason; so, if that amendment doesn't pass then I won't bother supporting the action I suggested on this page and we can let the status quo be. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Villages[]

The section about villages is kind of vague. Are Taiga villages the only new villages? Are Savanna villages the only village that changed? Saying "Now spawn in more biomes and with biome-specific wood (e.g. in Taiga with Spruce wood, Savanna with Acacia wood)" makes me think that there are more, but that they are unlisted. Are they actually? For now, I will edit it as if they are the only changes. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you picked up the more accurate info from the 16w20a page already. Anomie x (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Double word?[]

Under the Fossil section, it says it generates under "Desert, Swampland, Swampland and their variants, the word "Swampland" is statd twice. If not intended, can someone please fix it? -75.179.18.235 14:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comparing it to 16w20a, generated structures#Fossil and fossil, and trusting that they had it right there, I updated this page to match what is on those pages. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 14:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

New death message[]

Isnt there a new death message, "%player% discovered the floor was lava", when you die from a magma block? - Nixinova (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is! It's listed under 1.10#Blocks, under 'Magma block'. That, and the other Magma death message. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Name[]

What will 1.10 be named. When Released, the name Future Update does not make sense. I think it could be named the Structure Block update for the Structure Block. Also could be called The Mob update for the new Mobs--Wyatt2050 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

The community here doesn't decide the name, we either use the name Mojang gives, or we just don't name it. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 22:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Type of the new Fallflying tag[]

Can anyone confirm the type of the fallflying tag, and what class does it belong to? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 16:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In the code it's a boolean, parsed to/from NBT in the same way as flags like PersistenceRequired or LeftHanded, and it belongs to what MCP calls EntityLivingBase ("sf" in 1.10). Also, it's capitalized as "FallFlying". Anomie x (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, EntityLivingBase .. I'm trying to determine whether that properly belongs in Template:nbt inherit/mob, or whether it applies also to armorstand and other things ... if so, it's probably another thing our nbt inherit structure isn't properly capturing (Talk:Chunk_format#Chunk_format_inconsistent_with_minecraft_classes_inheritance.) – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 18:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It might be a bit out of date now, but User talk:Goandgoo/Archive 4#Entities might help. Armor stands are still under EntityLivingBase in 1.10, at least. Anomie x (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The game parses the value in the manner of a boolean, but it's read & saved to NBT as a byte (as there is no "boolean" datatype for NBT). Skylinerw (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Major" update?[]

As a developer, I just noticed this. A point update is a minor update. What if 2.0 comes out? Will that be a massive update? 95.89.173.125 18:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's all whatever nomenclature they've chosen to use: a point update in their case is pretty much their major updates. But yeah, a 2.0 would probably be something comparatively big. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 19:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Amount of time and number of dev versions[]

In this wiki,it is written that the version that the fastest minecraft update development,and it is the one with the least snaps,which should actually be beta 1.8 (2 pre releases only) 19:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by ThunderEagle14 (talk • contribs) at 19:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

If it states 'snapshots', pre-releases aren't snapshots. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And if it had stated with the least development versions? - ThunderEagle1420:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Then beta 1.8 would have had fewer dev versions and fewer days, yeah. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 21:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)