Talk: Java Edition 1.12

Protecting the page

I have noticed a lot of speculation that comes from non-users.

Should we protect this page?--SamGamgee55 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)SamGamgee55

MCW:Admin noticeboard#1.12 The Blobs 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Redrooey 17:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the new block the same as the new falling block?

They could be. They are very similar in appearance and texture. Could we at least make a note of this possibility on the page? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks the same to me, indeed worth noting. -FVbico (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC + 1:00)

I would support noting that they could be the same block. However, HelenAngel was not able to confirm that they are the same. The Blobs 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Likely it's just not her business to confirm or deny teased features; I would take her response as supporting neither side of this speculation. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly it. I can't confirm or deny teased features until the devs & PR give me the OK. A feature can change a LOT between the first tease and the snapshot/beta release of it, and sometimes slip releases, so I wait until I have confirmation so I don't unintentionally give out misleading info. --HelenAngel (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added the note. The Blobs 19:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt they are the exact same block. They are likely two different blocks internally, like wool is to carpet, or like powered redstone lamps are to unpowered redstone lamps. Also, there is speculation that the block in the water is not the same block as the ones Jeb showed off previously. Some people think that the blocks are cement, wet cement and concrete; it's speculated that cement is the block that's crafted and is affected by gravity, wet cement is created by putting cement in water (the block in the gif Jeb posted), and concrete (the block Jeb showed in the first screenshot) might be made by putting wet cement in a furnace. There is some evidence to back this up, as the color of the pink block in the gif Jeb posted is not the same color as the pink block Jeb showed off earlier, and Shoghicp/Kappische's tweets hint that the blocks are concrete/cement related. Jocopa3 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this too, but it could also be explained as more color tweaking. I think it's good the way we have it now. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Help

What does ⌘ Cmd mean in windows?--66.50.4.27 21:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no equivalent for PCs / Windows. Most of the time it's used as a modifier key with the mouse on a Mac as a workaround for simulating a right-click action on a multiple-button mouse that you would find on a PC. DSquirrelGM𝓣𝓟𝓒 21:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no ⌘ Cmd key on Windows, it's just the Mac equivalent of Ctrl. -Nixinova (talk|edits) 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Slippery

Terracotta-Blocks will be able to be moved by pistons while they are unaffected by slimeblocks.

Information cannot be added without a source. The Blobs 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/829638495593517059 -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Belongs in the 'unconfirmed features' section then, since Jeb specifically said it hasn't been implemented yet, and didn't confirm that it would be in the future. -- Orthotope^talk 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added the note. The Blobs 01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

This update already will have the longest delay between the first and second snapshots on record. 67.249.83.44 01:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not really a good trivia. Also, please use "Add topic" to start discussions. The Blobs 04:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

1.639 seconds?

Doesn't make any sense to me, that number. What I think makes sense would be 16 minutes and 39 seconds, which would be 999 seconds. Can somebody double-check that? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwer Sonsch (talk • contribs) at 9:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

You're reading it wrong. 1,639. -BDJP ^(t|c) 10:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I'm typing it wrong. One thousand and 639 seconds don't make any sense to me. Iwer Sonsch (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The section was incorrect anyways as no such change was made, removed it. Skylinerw (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Small armor item behavior change

I found a change in the 1.12 snapshots that isn't yet listed on the page: you can now equip an armor item by pressing 'use' while holding it, as long as you're not already wearing something in that slot. Should this be added? Sab39 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That was added in 13w04a, see the last item in the Changes section of that page : ) – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 15:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bah. I even tested in the current version before posting this, but I guess I must have done it wrong somehow - maybe I didn't realise I was already wearing something in the slot or something. Feel silly now. Sorry for wasting your time! Sab39 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha, not a waste at all but thanks. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 17:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed features

Is this section still needed? The 1.12 pre-releases are out, and those features have not been added yet. Maybe move them into 1.13?  Nixinova   T   C  

Let's wait until 1.12 is actually released. If they are still not added, we should move then to the Mentioned Features page as had been done before. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to reaffirm my position on this. Yes, it is very unlikely they will be added. However, Dinnerbone said the current pre-release is nearly the same, not exactly. Yes, I do think it is unlikely, but we do not speculate. Unless we get a statement that says nothing will be changed or added from pre-7, we should keep them. Then we can go ahead and remove them once the update is officially released. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1.12-pre4 and pre5 not appearing in the infobox

For some reason 1.12-pre4 not appearing in the infobox. Can someone please edit the template? — Nixinova (talk • edits • pages) 04:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm, when I click edit it shows up. Why is this? — Nixinova (talk • edits • pages) 04:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Same is happening for 1.12-pre5 and 1.12/Development versions. — Nixinova (talk • edits • pages) 08:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to edit the page and save without change. Media Wiki will update the page for evenyone and it appears   MarkusRost (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Snapshot specific info in the final page.

There seems to be an edit war about to start between me and another user. To prevent this, I decided to create a topic in the talk page. I noticed there were many snapshot-specific notes left on this page. For example: Saying the recipe book had optimizations. Why include that? That was a note from a snapshot. It is was not in previous releases so it could not be optimized. Now, if there were optimizations in 1.12.1 or whatever the next version is, include it. Not in the case however. Outlining some specific points:

• For advancement icons allowing data and such, why include only that? Either include all or none of the specific code bits.
• Mentioning "Toast" notifications. This is a gray area. It has been used by developers, but I think the areas where it is used need to be edited to include it better. Maybe a section under general?
• Mentioning that beds have the correct color on a map. In 1.11.2, there was no incorrect color. It is expected that in the final release, the correct colors are displayed. No need to mention it.

I think that's it for now. We need to clean up this page and remove unnecessary snapshot information -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Makes sense I would support removing the mentioned information. The Blobs 01:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 I agree There is no need for Optimisations to be included there – Nixinova • • 04:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC) I CAN USE BRITISH ENGLISH WHEN I WANT

Crafting

Please, add info about the new "automatic" crafting thing which shows recipes. I find it quite confusing; it doesn't show everything, the search is strange (when you eventually find it), and the categories are confusing.

With 1.12 due out on Friday, I'm suprised that this wiki doesn't seem to have any info about this quite radical change, which affects the appearance and actions for all players when they look in their inventory. 86.20.193.222 05:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Recipe book – Nixinova • • 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a section on this page that talks about it, and there is the Recipe Book page as Nixinova said -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixes

I've heard that we don't want fixes contained within development versions here, which I can agree with. But why is that not the case for all the other version pages? 1.11#Fixes 1.10#Fixes. --Pepijn (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"All the other" ... Are you saying there is some major version page like 1.10 or 1.9 that has snapshot-bugfixes on them? If so, which ones? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 18:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There is the occasional article where the release fixed a bug from a snapshot, hence it being listed there. Could be what he is referencing, though it could probably use a more specific message then. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 23:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There were some on the 1.10 and 1.11 pages, but I removed them. --Pepijn (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

KnightMiner is right, I remember this now. He's talking about bugs from snapshots that weren't fixed in any snapshot or prerelease, but were only fixed in the final release. They represent changes between the final pre-release and the release version. They were exceptions we were keeping around because they really don't go anywhere else. I agree with his suggestion of a better, more specific header for that situation. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 03:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a "1.12-release" page which lists the bugfixes and changes between the last snapshot and the full release, as in "The changelog between 1.12-pre7 and 1.12 is "lit pumpkins connect to blocks like pumpkins, added toast sounds, & the version number changed"" – @Dinnerbone (Nathan Adams) on X, June 7, 2017 – Nixinova • • 04:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've modeled it in my sandbox: User:Nixinova/Sandbox/Terracotta – Nixinova • • 04:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that page. I think you hit on a good idea though! It's not just bug fixes that are missing right now, it's that whole entire 1.12-pre7-to-1.12 change list (and same is missing on other versions). I am not sure it needs to be a separate page, but it could also be a section on 1.12, set apart, maybe below the main change log. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 05:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, page created – Nixinova • • 05:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for cutting in. I agree with that. (This agreement is for the idea of ​​creating a page as "1.12-release".)--Beans1512 (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The page looks like a good idea. Perhaps it should be called "1.12/Mid Snapshot changes". We may want a template that would be used as a header for such pages. The Blobs 14:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I advocate "1.12-mid release" or "1.12-mid1".--Beans1512 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created the template in my sandbox. The Blobs 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I also created a template: ja:利用者:Beans1512/サンドボックス1--Beans1512 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

.. Could someone explain why a separate page for more info on the same version is better than putting it all on the same page? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 14:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The changes are not apparent if you go directly from 1.11 to 1.12 (or any pair of adjacent versions); they are only apparent if you play the snapshots or development versions. The Blobs 14:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't care either way, personally, I think that this interim release will become a page as an interesting example.--Beans1512 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So which one? I think 1.12-release or 1.12-mid look the best. – Nixinova • • 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Butting in here to say Is there really a need for such a page to exist? Like, are we seriously going to create a page off of one tweet that talks about the changes between 1.12-pre7 and 1.12? It would just be easier to slap the changes onto the latter page in respective areas. -BDJP ^(t|c) 19:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I made the page 1.12-release; see if you like it or not, move it, merge it, whatever. Just see how it looks. – Nixinova • • 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I would object to "1.12 release" because that name implies that it is the full release of the version rather than the snapshot. One question is whether to write the title as its own page, or as a subpage of 1.12.

I have marked the existing page for deletion because it is unfinished. If you want other users to be able to edit the version in your sandbox, you can include a message box.

@BDJP007301: It may be useful as a summary of the snapshots. The Blobs 19:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It's useful to have the summary, yes, but people simply don't expect a second page on the exact same topic. Readers will miss it. Anyway, Nixinova, the info is complete and good.

Also there is one bug listed as 1.12, MC-92527 -- but if you look at the resolve date, it was resolved to 1.12 at a time when no pre-release was available anymore to be marked. This is probably an artifact of the bugtracker workflow. I would suggest verifying whether it's actually a pre7-to-release fix, because this affects whether it goes in the "main" (original) fixes list, or the pre7-to-release fixes list. As long as we're making a specific pre7-to-release section, it may as well be accurate. Because if history is any indication (and nothing has changed), then over time, many more bugs are going to be listed as 1.12. Every release this happens: the tracker staff can only choose the most recent release, and so tons of bugs are resolved with that version, even though technically they are probably fixed in a snapshot. It's a lot more work than anyone here on the wiki has time to sort out. We usually ignore it. But now, if we maintain a pre7-to-release fixes list, now that list will be the target, and we'll sacrifice any semblance of accuracy in that entire (small) section by just dumping all the 1.12s into its list. BDJP, you do the bug listings too, you understand what I mean? What are your thoughts on that?

I'm just saying, for this new section we're talking about: once the initial bug list is set, on release day, no new bugs should be blindly added to it just because they say 1.12, unless the editor vouches it's an actual prerelease-to-release bugfix.

And so MC-92527 shouldn't be in there unless someone can vouch it was a bug in pre7, and fixed in release. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry I wrote a lot of stuff, I just hate if we went to do this, and then it all got diluted by the bug tracker process because we didn't forsee it and decide what to do. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so vote time.
Who votes for a separate page, like 1.12-release?

– Nixinova • • 21:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two development "cycles": Snapshot and Release. To complete the snapshot cycle, this page is needed; all changes should be documented in both cycles. You could also name it "Changes from 1.12-pre7 to 1.12". By creating a section this would a) duplicate content on the same page and b) make the changes from 1.12-pre7 to 1.12 less visible to the user who is interested in them. | violine1101^(Talk) 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Who votes for having a section in 1.12?

It's not enough information to justify the existence of a page. --Pepijn (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I second the notion that it is also not enough information to justify a page. -BDJP ^(t|c) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I third it. I'm also not so worried about repetition.. there is already plenty of repetition, like restating some fixes as changes, or like a change to a block sound being listed both under sounds and under blocks. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 01:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Who votes for no info at all?

I disagree with the creation of the section and again say that I agree with the creation of "1.12-mid1" or "1.12-release". Certainly, the elements of "the mid release (assumed to be"1.12-mid1")" are very few. However, although the page created by Nixinova needs correction, it is well organized, and it is enough as a page. And I personally want you to page such a rare, interesting, first example 1.12-mid1.

Postscript: I created a "1.12-mid1" page like Nixinova: ja:利用者:Beans1512/サンドボックス5--Beans1512 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Also oppose Only a small fraction of readers would be interested in the information. It is more useful for editors who are not sure whether a fix applies to the main release of a version, so perhaps the pages should be in the "Minecraft wiki" namespace. The Blobs 02:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, mixed opinions... 2 for new page, 3 for section, 2 for nothing. Soo.... what do we do? – Nixinova • • 03:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly temporary change, you can revert it if you want, just see how it looks: 1.12#Mid-Release Changes – Nixinova • • 03:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I am reversing your edits because the amount of information and the number of votes on the talk page are not enough. Sorry! :(--Beans1512 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating a version page for a non-existent version isn't good, neither is a page for such a tiny amount of information. It should obviously be something that should be documented, but a simple footnote section on one of the actual versions is all that's needed. Whether that is the last pre-release, or the release page, I'm not decided. The pre-release somewhat makes the most sense, as it keeps the development version changes off the release version pages, and you could justify saying that the changes between pre-release and release was either: a "re-upload" type change of the existing pre-release, or was another pre-release version; both of which just wasn't released to the public, so it seems more related to the last public pre-release version. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 03:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Majr: Then, is it correct that I (or you) make a "Re-upload" section on the 1.12-pre7 page, or a "Mind-release" section on the 1.12 page?--Beans1512 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "Re-upload" is a good name for it, I agree with "Mid-Release" or something like that – Nixinova • • 04:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Probably it is what I saw by mistake in machine translation from English to Japanese of Majr's message.--Beans1512 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

(As a test) I temporarily added it. Please correct it: 1.12#Mid-release changes--Beans1512 (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2017‎ (UTC)

Okay, now should there be a Fixes subsection, with the mid-release fixes? – Nixinova • • 04:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I had added. (I'm sorry, I didn't have much information so I could not add a fine number.)--Beans1512 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Postscript: I finished the correspondence about "1.12 Mid-release".--Beans1512 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dinnerbone's tweet just mentions the changes that were implemented in between 1.12-pre7 and 1.12. I have made minor changes to make that clearer. I still think having a separate section is unnecessary as it would only be relevant for those people who have been actively following snapshots. Personally some sort of footnote would be better. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 08:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain that having the section on pre7 makes more sense, as it keeps the pre-release changes together, and off the release page (as you say, this information is irrelevant to people who only follow release versions). The section should probably be renamed to "Pre-release changes" in this case. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 06:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Agree – Nixinova • • 06:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

At 1.12#Fixes_2, it says "From released versions before Alpha 0.15.0", which is not a version of the PC version. It should say "From released versions before 1.12". Above it (1.12#Fixes), there is one title stating fixes for issues before 1.12. That title should be removed and the one issue contained there should be moved to 1.12#Fixes_2. 194.242.11.13 14:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That is so weird, that's the second time I've seen that, and just this past week too: it's pulling the wrong version from who knows where. Majr and KnightMiner, do you have any insight on why that might happen? I have a screenshot if you care to see i. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Mid-release changes

Blobs2, "mid-release" isn't a real term with any meaning, it was sort of invented during the above discussion. I'm all for clarity but I'm not sure that's clarity. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 18:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "Snapshot summary" is better. The Blobs 18:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Think of a person that is visiting this page for the first time, now looking at the table of contents. "Snapshot summary" could lead them to think that section is going to summarize the eleven 1.12 snapshots. Maybe "Changes from 1.12-pre7"? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 19:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Changes from 1.12-pre7" is the most reasonable section name I've heard so far (just my opinion of course). It's best to keep names as simple/clear as possible. --Pepijn (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Some of the changes may have been made in earlier snapshots/development versions. The Blobs 19:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The goal of the section is to display changes between the latest snapshot/pre-release and the final release. --Pepijn (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if any changes were made in an earlier snapshot/ pre-release, by definition they wouldn't be in that bottom section, they'd be in the main "additions", "changes", "fixes" section above. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think "Release changes" sounds better. – Nixinova • • 04:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I renamed the section. The Blobs 04:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Agree Thanks!--Beans1512 (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Blocks" in the "Release changes" section

Can someone tell us the meaning of "Jack o'Lantern now join to blocks like pumpkins."?--Beans1512 (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's about how jack o'lanterns were behaving differently from pumpkins when letting blocks like fences, glass panes, walls, etc join to them or not torches and redstone torches connect to the side of the jack o'lantern. In the final release this was fixed, so now jack o' lanterns behave the same as pumpkins in the block connecting aspect. It could probably be worded better on the page. --Pepijn (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! (I can't change that) I hope it will be changed.--Beans1512 (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done It should hopefully be a bit more clear now. --Pepijn (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I made it clearer, but probably we need to fix it.--Beans1512 (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump

"Donald John Trump"? Really? Why not just say "Donald Trump"? His middle name isn't really necessary to include :P 74.108.224.146 22:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed  Nixinova   T   C   20:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Colored Beds

Beds were given 15 more colours in this update, someone please include this change in the Additions section. 69.201.74.64 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Done  Nixinova   T   C   20:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)