User talk:Dentedharp90041/Archive 2

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page of User talk:Dentedharp90041. Do not edit this page.
New sections can be added at the current talk page.

Crowdin page

The Crowdin page should be written as a wiki page, not as a tutorial nor advertisement as it appeared (avoid using words such as you etc). I made some changes to make the page more wiki-like, please keep this in mind when making further changes. GoandgooTalk
11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about that. I'm gonna keep this in mind. – DentedHarp90041tc`


Two things: Because Gamepedia uses cloudflare, there will always be somewhat of a lag between when you upload/update an image file and when it actually appears correctly. Up to 24 hours I think. (It appeared you were saying that the wiki is struggling and perhaps you didn't know this). I find it best to just let the image sit and trust that it was done right the first time, and if after 24 hrs it's wrong, correct it.

Also, have you tried the sprite editor? You appear to be manually editing the image and the ID file, which is the hard way and not necessary

See you around! – Sealbudsman talk/contr 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason that I am not using the sprite editor is because I don't know how to add images. – DentedHarp90041tc 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Step one would be get all the individual square images ready. Then press Edit Sprite, and you'll be in Edit Sprite mode. A green bar will appear, and on there is an Add Image button. That will allow you to upload individual sprites. Also, in Edit Sprite mode, you can create sections, drag and drop sprites to other sections, click a sprites name to rename it, and click the sprite to upload a new sprite in its place. And it takes care of the ID file and the POS numbers for you, and stitches the image back together for you. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks for letting me know! – DentedHarp90041tc 14:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 : ) – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Education Edition commands

Hey! I saw your latest edit on the commands page. If you don't know, I also have a complete list of EDU commands on my workspace page. It is not completely done yet, so be sure to add some new information of the commands. :) – ItsPlantseed|⟩ 11:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I just added those commands into the commands page with some of your changes. So feel free to reword the sentences and remove some redundant information if you feel like. – ItsPlantseed|⟩ 12:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know your workspace page. If I have found more commands, I will add those commands to your workspace page :) By the way, I have found those commands at the program folder of Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition. Dentedharp90041tc 12:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Flower pot images

Hey Dentedharp90041, you recently uploaded images of flower pots with contents. While it's really great that someone finally tackled this task there is a minor problem with your images: the edges are quite weird and not as smooth as they're supposed to be. I guess your images are simply in-game screenshots with Mineshot or a similar mod? No matter what I'd definitely recommend you to replace them with real renders to avoid this problem. If you aren't up to it just put a request in the community portal for someone else to do it, this has to be fixed. If needed a template for Blender can be found on the German wiki. – Fusseel 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just used Mineshot. I know it's not the best way to create isometric screenshots. Also, thanks for the link to Blender files, I have been finding them in this wiki but cannot find one. Thanks again! – Dentedharp90041tce 07:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Pipe trick

The reason your edit to Module:Ping didn't work is because the pipe trick is a text transformation which is applied on pagesave. It's meant to slightly simplify the process of adding links for editors, and even if it worked when transcluded (which by its very nature it can't), it wouldn't gain anything. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 11:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks for letting me know the reason why my edit didn't work! – Dentedharp90041tce 12:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

About Bedrock Edition 1.2

I think your edit should be considered again, since it has not been discussed anywhere and is relatively an important change.a20001017Talk 13:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A20001017: I totally forgot to discuss about my changes before doing them, and you can feel free to discuss them with me and/or revert my edits. – Dentedharp90041tce 13:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Template in your signature

Please remember the rules for a signature: Your signature may not contain a template unless it is always substituted. The resulting code must be no more than 250 characters.   HorseHead.png MarkusRost (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me remember the guidelines. – Dentedharp90041tce 17:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Grammar" edits to Bedrock Edition 1.2

Why did you apply Mishmoshkeep21's edits to Bedrock Edition 1.2 when you know he's a troll? Did you look at the diff before you applied them? He made three changes: A respelling of "leaped" to the British preference "leapt" (which violates wp:Manual of Style#Retaining the existing variety), a replacement of a definite article with an indefinite one (pointless and slightly less meaningful), and insertion of a comma after "however" (entirely optional for a single-word introductory adverbial). His other "spelling" and "grammar" edits have been reverted, so why did you apply this one? --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Auldrick: I know he's a troll but I did not know that his edit was a troll too. I looked at the diff first before doing that edit. I never knew "leapt" was a British preference; I researched them to make sure and it says that "leapt" was a past tense, but it didn't say that it was a British preference. I don't see a reason why the article "a" is indefinite, but if that's your opinion, then that's okay. You said that the insertion of a comma after "however" is entirely optional, which means that a comma can be added but not needed. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to add a comma after "however". – Dentedharp90041tce 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you looked at the diff. I have a couple of bits of information in response to your explanation, though:
  • "Indefinite article" isn't an opinion, it's the grammatical term used for "a" and "an" as opposed to the definite article "the". The indefinite article is used when the thing being referred to is theoretical, unknown, or nonspecific, the definite article when it is specific or implicit but known to exist. Either is grammatically and semantically correct here because the number of distribution channels for the update is definite and knowable, but I didn't specify it because I didn't know it and couldn't be bothered to figure it out. But I used "the" because it's a definite number even though I didn't specify it.
  • I respect your opinion about "however,", but there is authoritative guidance on the matter. A comma is optional after a short introductory adverbial (unless you're a diehard prescriptivist). Since the modern trend in prose is to use fewer commas (and less punctuation in general), I make a conscious effort to use fewer of them than I used to.
My point here is that these were stylistic choices, not errors of grammar or fact. If you thought they were grammatical errors, perhaps you're not as much of an expert as you think and should be more cautious about "correcting" something that isn't factually wrong. Edits that only change the style are mere vanities; we shouldn't litter our edit histories with them. (I've thought a lot about this because I used to do the same thing myself. I regret it now and hope I've stopped.) --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks! I will stop "correcting" things which are already correct, because it only makes them wrong. – Dentedharp90041tce 07:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sprite Editor question

I happened to notice, up above, that you were learning to use the Sprite Editor. Sprites are something I know absolutely nothing about. Would you mind pointing me to a page that could help me learn how it works? Thanks! --– Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Auldrick: Check the Sprites section (Sealbudsman taught me :D) and mw:Extension:SpriteSheet – Dentedharp90041tce 07:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Where did you get the info for the minimum Android version requirements for Bedrock?

See also the discussion going on here:

After discovering incorrect version requirement info in the infobox of Pocket Edition (someone made an edit claiming that 5.0 was the minimum supported Android version since Dec 19, 2015, which I knew wasn't correct), I discovered that the info for the 4.2 requirement was also incorrect... I was running the latest version of the game on an Android 4.1.2 tablet, and HelenAngel said that last time she checked, the minimum version was 4.0 (though it may have changed to 4.1 since then). I discovered that the addition of the 4.2 & 3.0 dates could both be traced back to edits made by you:

I have since removed the 5.0 & 4.2 numbers as they were both obviously incorrect, and added references for the other numbers except 3.0, which has none that I can find.

So since you seem to be the one responsible for adding the info, I was curious... where did you get the info? The 4.2 information was definitely incorrect, but I don't have any Android devices running 3.0 to test, so I can't tell if that info is correct or not. Could you provide any sources for the date on which the version requirement increased to 3.0, or do you have any devices running 3.0 with Pocket Edition installed allowing you to see what the latest version was for that Android version?

Just in case you misunderstand: I don't mean to accuse you of intentionally adding incorrect info. I can tell by your reputation that you're obviously not trying to do anything malicious, and I can't see why anyone would intentionally add incorrect info like that anyway. I'm just trying to figure out the correct dates for the changes in the minimum Android version requirements and get sources, if possible.

Thanks for your time and help. 🙂

SuperGeniusZeb (TC) 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

SuperGeniusZeb: What I did was I decompiled the Minecraft PE app on Android using an external program, opening its AndroidManifest.xml (more info can be found here), and checking the <uses-sdk> tag (more info can be found here), it had this code: android:minSdkVersion="17", which says that the minimum Android version that it can be run is Android API 17 (which is Android Jelly Bean) (See also: Android version history § Android 4.2 Jelly Bean (API 17)). Before updating the minimum requirements on the page, I tried to install it into a smartphone running Android 4.0, and it showed an error even before installing the app. I haven't checked it yet if this is still the case in the current version. – Dentedharp90041tce 11:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I just used that tool on the 1.2.3 build 1 APK, and there wasn't any android:minSdkVersion at all... there was a <uses-feature android:glEsVersion="0x20000" android:required="true"/> however, which signifies that OpenGL 2.0 support is required. the <manifest> tag also contains these attributes: platformBuildVersionCode="22" platformBuildVersionName="5.1.1-1819727">, which says that the version was built on 5.1.1, but that doesn't help at all with determining which versions of Android it supports.
It seems like the current APK doesn't even have a minimum Android version, and simply requires OpenGL ES 2.0. According to this, Android 2.2 is the first version of Android to support OpenGL ES 2.0. However, just because Android 2.2 supports that OpenGL version doesn't mean that every Android device running 2.2 or newer actually have the hardware/drivers/whatever to use it, so that really complicates things... the Mojang blog post for 0.6.0 clearly states that support for 2.1 & 2.2 was dropped, which along with what you've told me indicates that the minimum requirements for Bedrock on Android have changed to no longer have a "minimum version", and that the technical minimum version has actually been pushed back to 2.2 now.
So like I said before, that really complicates everything. I keep backups of older APKs, so I'm going to try and see how the requirements have changed since several updates ago. So far, all I know is that:
  • Everything until 0.6.0 supported Android 2.1+
  • 0.6.0 supported 2.3+
  • At some point (allegedly the release of Alpha 0.7.3, according to the current date on the wiki), the version requirement was changed to 3.0+.
  • At some point (the release of 0.12.1 build 1, according to the date you provided... did you check the version before or did you just use the date of the earliest version you tested?) the version requirement was changed to 4.2+.
  • At some point, the version requirement MAY have changed to 5.0 with the release of 1.0, though this addition was by an unregistered user who may have just seen and been confused by the platformBuildVersionCode which could have been 21 (Android 5.0) back then - in the 1.2.3 build 1 APK, it is 22 (Android 5.1). I have APKs dating back to around this point, so I may be able to test and see if there was still an actual specified minimum version at this point or not.
  • At some point after that, the version requirement was removed and there is now currently just an OpenGL ES 2.0 requirement as of 1.2.3 build 1, which effectively makes the minimum version 2.2, albeit in practice not every device running that version will actually run the game due to the OpenGL requirement.
Thanks for letting me know how you found the version requirement... now I know that the minimum version situation is a lot more complicated than I had assumed prior. I'll go through my APK backups (which date back to around the 0.16 beta, if I recall correctly), see what requirements they have, and post my findings here. Do you have any older APKs you could check, and if so, how far back do your backups go? SuperGeniusZeb (TC) 18:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like everything from 0.12.1 onward has the same OpenGL ES 2.0 requirement and lack of specified minimum Android version/SDK version as the 1.2.3 build 1 APK. I also had access to a 0.8.0 APK, and it didn't have the OpenGL requirement (which makes sense, since 0.10.0 changed the OpenGL version to 2.0), but it also STILL didn't have any specified minimum Android version. My best guess is that the minimum Android version requirement was removed after 0.6.0 and either before or starting with 0.8.0, but the information you added to the wiki seems to imply you tested a 0.12.1 build 1 APK and it did have a minimum Android SDK version in its manifest. Could APK Studio possibly be failing to get the <uses-sdk> tag when it decodes the AndroidManifest.xml file? Could you re-test that APK you tested back then, assuming you still have it? I'm getting pretty confused.😖 SuperGeniusZeb (TC) 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
SuperGeniusZeb: According to this site, platformBuildVersionCode is the android:targetSdkVersion, which means that it will work best on the specified Android version, as well as platformBuildVersionName. When I did this edit, I just checked the version before. By the way, it's not APK Studio that handles the decompiling of APK files, it is Apktool that does the job. APK Studio is just a graphical user interface of Apktool. It is possible that Apktool is failing to get android:minSdkVersion. I don't remember exactly the version of Pocket Edition that I tested, I guess it's PE Alpha 0.12.1 build 1.
It is weird that Apktool always fails to get android:minSdkVersion. So I tried APK Editor for Android, and it successfully got the android:minSdkVersion. It still has this code: android:minSdkVersion="17" (source). Thus, Bedrock Edition can only be run on Android 4.2+. – Dentedharp90041tce 10:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I used APK Editor, and I saw that the midSdkVersion has indeed been 17 dating all the way back to 0.15.0. I then checked a 0.12.1 APK, and the minSdkVersion was actually 11 (Android 3.0), so the version requirement must have changed in one of the updates from 0.12.2 through 0.15.0... most likely 0.13.0, 0.14.0, or 0.15.0. Unfortunately I don't have any APKs between 0.12.1 and 0.15.0 to figure out which one in particular it is. Whatever the case, that does mean that the 4.2 requirement date that was on the wiki was incorrect, as 0.12.1 supported Android 3.0 and came out on Septemeber 9, 2015. But we do know it had to have happened between October 11, 2015 and June 10, 2016.
It turns out my 0.8.0 APK was actually a 0.8.0 build 2 APK, though that doesn't really matter in regards to what I discovered: I found that the minSdkVersion for that APK was 9 (Android 2.3). (Side note: according to the wiki, 0.8.0 build 2 is actually the first beta build for 0.8.0, despite its name.) This means the Android 3.0 date on the wiki is also incorrect, as the 0.8.0 beta had not even started yet on August 15, 2013 (the release date of 0.7.3), and wouldn't start until November 22, 2013. So this means that the version requirement had to have changed to Android 3.0 in one of the updates from 0.8.0 build 3 through 0.12.1, which came out on November 26, 2013 and September 9, 2015 respectively.
On another note, the minimum version requirements can be different in the current release and the beta for the upcoming version, so should verison requirement dates use the date of the earliest beta build to increase the version requirement, or should they use the date of the first non-beta release to increase the version requirement?
So to summarize, we now know that:
  • As discovered before, the version requirement changes are documented for 2.1 (first version supported), and the increase to 2.3 (0.6.0 release).
  • 0.8.0 build 2 min Android version is 2.3, so it's safe to assume nothing changed between 0.6.0 and it.
  • The min Android version changed at some point from 0.8.0 build 3 through 0.12.1. (Nov. 26, 2013 - Sept. 9, 2015)
  • 0.12.1 min Android version is 3.0
  • The min Android version changed at some point from 0.12.2 through 0.15.0. (Oct. 11 2015 - June 10, 2016)
  • 0.15.0 min Android version is 4.2 and has apparently stayed at that version all the way up to the present as of (1.2.5 build 1).
What's weird, though, is that I can still install and update Minecraft on my Android 4.1.2 device, despite it not being supported. I've tried uninstalling the app to see if it would let me reinstall it, and it does. It's a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2013), so my best guess is that there is something different about the version of Android 4.1.2 that Samsung put on the device that allows it to install 4.2 software. What do you think? It's obvious now that the minimum supported version is 4.2, so I can't figure out why my 4.1.2 device is still able to install the latest version of the game.🤔 SuperGeniusZeb (TC) 17:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
SuperGeniusZeb: I will try to investigate the exact Pocket Edition versions of when their minimum supported Android version has changed. I have my old phone (which is Android 4.1.1) and my old tablet (which has Android 4.0.3) which contains old back ups of the APK files. Unfortunately, though, they don't power on, due to their batteries. I will try to replace their batteries and decompile the Pocket Edition APK files with the versions being investigated.
I think that the wiki should follow the date of the first beta release.
Your Android 4.1.2 device might have had done something similar to this trick, that's why it was able to install an incompatible app. – Dentedharp90041tce 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
SuperGeniusZeb: Based on my investigations, I have found out that:
Therefore, we can say that the min. Android version changed to 3.0 in PE Alpha 0.8.1 (source) and the min. Android version changed to 4.2 in PE Alpha 0.12.2 (source). – Dentedharp90041tce 05:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it! I've updated the Bedrock Edition & Pocket Edition pages, and now all Android version requirement changes have had their dates found and sourced! :D SuperGeniusZeb (TC) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Demo Minecraft Microsoft?

was this Minecraft Demo made by Microsoft it looks like it, from the picture...

                      Key Words:      Minecraft Demo Microsoft 
               Minecraft user:EnderSteelerGame

–Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 04:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I don't clearly understand what you are trying to tell me, but I think what you meant is that is the demo mode created by Microsoft. The authors of the demo mode for Java Edition are the authors of the full Java Edition game, and the authors of the demo mode for Bedrock Edition are the authors of the full Bedrock Edition. – Dentedharp90041tce 10:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)