Talk:Java Edition version history/Indev

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Problem with 0.31_xx versions[edit]

Hi, there is a problem with the 0.31_xx development versions. I made a redirect to 0.31_18, but the page loads at the surface and not at the indicated page. This is due to _'s being read as spaces by the wiki. Hope this can get solved. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue was that there was no anchor named "0.31_18" on the page. Fixed. -- Orthotopetalk 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

0.31 jan 10[edit]

I have this one too. You spawn with 99 apples, 99 white wool, 99 glass, 99 torches, 99 tnt, 99 bookshelves, an iron shovel, an iron pickaxe, and an iron axe. 05:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a lot for mentioning this to us. Actually there was no Indev release on Jan 10, 2010. This error was introduced in a very recent edit, it's supposed to be Jan 11. You can even verify this yourself, if you were to take a look at the contents of the META-INF folder in your jar: it dates to Jan 11, 2010, 00:02 am. It's close, but it still counts as Jan 11. ^^
Sadly there are a lot of people who just make random edits without providing valid sources or having any credibility to them. They mess up this page quite a lot and it takes some time and effort to prove their additions wrong and sort them out. That's also the reason why this page is no longer edible by user without a wiki account. – Fuzs 10:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Alright, good to know. I changed the name of the folder, jar, and json to say "in-0.31-20100111-1" in the download. 02:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

First appearance of wooden house[edit]

The wooden indev house first appeared on 2010-02-14. Before then, it was mossy cobblestone. Should this be noted? 02:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Indev (January 24, 2010)[edit]

This is not exactly about this page, but I didn't want to create the talk page of a deleted page, nor did I think that something like this would need to go the community portal talk page. What exactly is the point of deleting the redirect Indev (January 24, 2010), and how does it accomplish anything? It will help tremendously with links - not just the old ones, but users may likely decide to link to it, as it basically means the same thing as its redirect target.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

And now the same goes with all of the other ones that were deleted when moving to the "correct" title.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It's so much easier to just create the redirects already and not have to worry about using the link parameter differently for every single Indev history entry. I could just go ahead and create them, which I really think would be helpful and there's no reason not to, but there's no point of doing that if they're just going to be tagged for deletion right away, which is why I'm discussing beforehand.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I really wish MinecraftPhotos4U had discussed it before moving all of them and breaking everything. It's not the first time he's done something like this either, and it seems to be just as much of a headache every time. And since some of the dates have been moved here, it's now inconsistent with the version history page, so there's that to fix as well. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I completely understand why he moved them, but I really don't see what the problem is with leaving redirects. Can I just create them, or do you think I should wait for more responses?-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I dunno, right now I'm more bothered by the (date, 1/2) entries for versions that were released on the same day. Would be better to distinguish the release number by putting it in a separate bracket and/or calling them v1/v2. Alternatively, there could simply be one shared link, since the targets are listed directly below each other, so there's little point in linking them separately.

Page names, example

  • Current: 0.31 (February 1, 2010, 1) / 0.31 (February 1, 2010, 2)
  • Alt. 1: 0.31 (February 1, 2010) (1) / 0.31 (February 1, 2010) (2)
  • Alt. 2: 0.31 (February 1, 2010 v1) / 0.31 (February 1, 2010 v2)
  • Alt. 3: 0.31 (February 1, 2010) (v1) / 0.31 (February 1, 2010) (v2)
  • Alt. 4: 0.31 (February 1, 2010)

- Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 20:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would say either the third one or a slight variation of the second one (putting a comma before v1/v2), favoring the second one slightly more. Another question, would, e.g., 0.31 (February 1, 2010), redirect to v1 with an {{about}} template linking to v2, or make it disambiguation? I definitely think the page should exist, in case a reader searches for it.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Uh, considering they all link to the same table on the same page (just a different row), and v1 and v2 are just below/above the other one, there's definitely no need for {{about}} or {{disambiguation}}. All that's needed is some method of scrolling, which most people have. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 06:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I was dumb and for some reason had made that post as if they are completely separate pages - I apologize for my mistake. In that case, yeah, there's definitely no need for "about" or "disambiguation." However, when they do become separate pages, as I assume is eventually going to happen, I do think one of the two would be helpful, even if the other version is still mentioned in the infobox (I can explain my reasoning further if you'd like). But yeah, we definitely don't need an {{about}} template saying, "This page is about the first version released on that day. For the second version, scroll your mouse up one centimeter." Lol!-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
And now he has renamed several old unused classic double redirects into the same month/day/year/number system, while still leaving them unused (and double-redirecting)... Majr you seem to be the go-to guy for proper article naming, what's your take on this? - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Come to think of it, having the pages be called "Indev 0.31..." instead of just "0.31...." would make more sense, since that would be consistent with the Classic pages. Should I go ahead with this naming scheme instead? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if all this renaming stuff should be happening when we're not even sure where the Java version pages are going to end up. Everything will have to be moved again if we want to add the Java Edition prefix... Anyway with what is going on with the bedrock versions, maybe we need to just use the version numbers the game actually uses, rather than adding our own prefixes on like "Classic" and "Indev". As long as none of the numbers overlap it should make sense and be more accurate and compact. MajrTalk
05:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Also I don't like having extra numbers tacked on the end of multiple versions with the same name/date. Probably should just put them on the same page, maybe consider them the same as we do re-uploaded versions. MajrTalk
05:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 AgreeIf they were released on the same day then they are probably just reuploads to fix bugs or something. – Nixinova Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png Grid Map.png 05:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 Undecided - If the changes are sufficiently minor I'd be fine taping them onto the bottom of a bigger page, but December 31, 2009's two 0.31 versions seem pretty distinct from each other, so I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with them sharing a page or not. There's also the situation of "top-heaviness" - what if the bug fix version came first, as in Infdev June 25? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I  Agree with Majr that they should probably be moved to their actual in-game version name - e.g. 0.0.9a, 0.0.14a_03, 0.31 (February 1, 2010), etc. Those already exist as redirects, so it doesn't make sense that they should have the "Classic" prefix. What does everybody think of this matter? Nobody's really put their input as to what these should be moved to. As for the multiple versions on the same date, I'm  Undecided. While it makes sense to me, as MinecraftPhotos4U said, many of the versions are very distinct from one another.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't feel too comfortable leaving the Infdev and late Indev versions as raw arbitrary dates, but since they do display their development period names in-game I doubt this will happen. As for Classic, I can see how moving them to just their version numbers would make sense, but that would end up being inconsistent with every other development stage before 1.0, so I currently  Oppose for now. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it'll be good, but here's an idea: 0.31 (2010-02-01, v1)/ 0.31 (2010-02-01, v2). Orphanedpixel (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Arctic