Talk:Java Edition version history/Alpha

Seecret Updates

Well, yes there were ten seecret updates, nine Friday updates and one Saturday update, but the version 1.1.1 reads "Seecret Saturday 10." There weren't ten Saturday updates, the Saturday update was just the tenth one. Should this be fixed? captainsid2001 (a.k.a. freeman2001) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed —Kanegasi ☺C 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicken Death

Mobs cannot be killed in SMP without the use of fire or fall damage. Other attacks will knock the mob back but not damage it. Chickens killed with fire or falling drop leather.

Chickens no longer take fall damage and now slowly glide down using their wings.

It says that if a chicken dies from fall damage, it drops leather. It also says chickens no longer take fall damage. How are chickens supposed to die from fall damage? --108.27.137.221 21:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving versions in tables to their own pages for each release.

I've noticed that on the Beta, Pocket Edition and official release version history pages that all the versions are laid out into a table for each major release. They include the minor versions in them along with the release date of them. I would like this to be applied to this page as well as well as the Infdev, Indev, and Classic pages so its not all messed up in a huge table.

--MarioProtIV (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not a bad idea. I think it's something we're getting around to, as we can. We started with those other 3 you mentioned, and are kind of working our way backward in time. The Beta pages were only just split up, probably about a month ago.

User:Sealbudsman/Bull Also, that's bold, moving the page like that – though I do  Like your rename. To anyone else: the rename probably doesn't break anything, right? No DPLs depend on the name being as it was? What if we moved all the 'version history' pages so they read plainly like this? (MarioProtIV, I wouldn't do it just yet until we get some sense of what people think about it.) – Sealbudsman (Aaron) ^t/_c 15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There are 60 double redirects... –LauraFi - talk 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. –LauraFi - talk 16:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on the rename, but it should've been discussed first. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If kept as they are, the name could go either way based on whether you are referencing it as historical information of the article or an alternate part of the development cycle to separate. Overall, I prefer keeping them as subpages as they all cover the same topic of the PC released, so keeping them together makes more sense. I would even go as far as to suggest merging the variants, as since they are all contained in tables, there is no longer too much content for one page. For the pages not yet split into separate articles, such as this page, I would leave them as subpages until split.

@Sealbudsman: No issues other than the redirects LauraFi stated, as only {{version link}} ever really used them, and it just uses the redirects now.

@LauraFi: Since there were 60 double redirects, there was really no need to fix them manually, since both my bot and Majr's bot could have easily fixed automatically them upon one of us logging on. Since this change requires changing 60 other pages, it would have been better reverted as a too major change without consensus. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 02:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've noticed that all Alpha 1.2.x updates have been made into their own pages. Looking good, thanks to Goandgoo :) --MarioProtIV (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the Alpha versions have now been moved to their respective version pages. Moving infdev and earlier is a bit troublesome, as many of the versions have the same version number. In addition, many of the additions are simply 1-3 lines. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that doing that for Infdev and before is not a rational idea. If it is just for sake of categories, then I shall say to some that redirects can also be categorized. And Goandgoo, please don't add an additional line break before your comment for sake of consistency. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Most indev and infdev versions are just under the date it seems, which could work for the pages if needed, but that lack of content per version is what inclines me to keep them separate. The classic and pre-classic at least have different version numbers, but still face the same lack of content issue, so I would keep them together.

Nick, you are one of the few who does not add a new line before comments. It make distinguishing comments from different authors in the editing screen easier with no real disadvantage, thus the talk page guidelines recommends it. (if you have further comments on this formatting, I would suggest taking it to the talk page guidelines talk or my talk page, as it's off topic here) –KnightMiner ^t/_c 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)